From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 05:19:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:19:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I'm sure it will seem odd that I'm asking Hilchos Pesach at this time of year, so I will explain how I got here: I was thinking about the sequence of Kiddush on the first two nights of Sukkos (hey, Israelis! don't turn me off yet! this is relevant to you too!), and how most in Chu"l say Shehecheyanu last on the first night, but Leshev last on the second night. To understand that better, I tried to construct a similar scenario under other circumstances. I figured that if one were to make Kiddush on Matza at the Seder, this might be what I'm looking for. This could come about if one was at the Seder, and had neither wine nor any other drink for Kiddush, and was therefore forced to say the Kiddush on Hamotzi. (This actually happened to me personally when I was much younger than now, and I was working as a busboy in a hotel which had an excellent hechsher on the food, but a kitchen manager who did not care much for those of us who wanted to participate in a seder.) It turns out that there is an entire siman (#483) in Orach Chaim on this very situation, explaining what to do at the Seder if one has a very limited amount of wine, or even no wine at all, or even no Chamar Medinah at all. I expected that the proper procedure would be very similar to what we do the first night of Sukkos. I expected the answer to be: Hamotzi, Kiddush, Al Achilas Matza, and finally Shehecheyanu. But as it turns out, Beur Halacha "Ad Shegomer" says: "See the sefer Maamar Mordechai, who is machria that the bracha of Zman is part of Kiddush [birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu], so therefore, say Zman and afterwards Al Achilas Matza." (The Kaf HaHayyim 483:8 also says to say Al Achilas Matza after the Shehecheyanu, and also refers to the Maamar Mordechai.) I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? We say Shehecheyanu on the sukkah and on the lulav. One could argue that these are not on the mitzva itself but on the making of the objects, in which case I'd suggest to say Shehecheyanu on the making of the matza! Why not? For decades, I've begun the Seder by telling the others that when we say Shehecheyan, we should have all the mitzvos of the night in mind. I've taken this to be a davar pashut, but now, I've reviewed my notes, and I see it mentioned in only two of my hagados: Kol Dodi 7:5 (by Rav Dovid Feinstein) who refers to the Siddur of the Yaavetz; and Yaynah Shel Torah 3:11:7 (by Binyamin Adler) who quotes Vayadeg Moshe 15:11. Is it possible that these are minority opinions, who disagree with the Beur Halacha? After writing the above, I found in the Halichos Shlomo on Moadim, vol 2, chapter 9, footnote 151, that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach used to announce at his Seder, that the Shehecheyanuapplies to all the mitzvos of the night, and that this is why there is no problem for the women to answer Amen, even if they already said Shehecheyanu at candle lighting. On the other hand, he writes in footnote 152 that if such a woman is actually saying the Kiddush herself, she should omit the Shehecheyanu, because "they did not make a takana to say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvos of the night on their own." Apparently, RSZA holds that as long as one is saying Kiddush at the Seder, and Kiddush does have Shehecheyanu, then that Shehecheyanu can include matza too. But if for some reason one could not say Kiddush at the Seder [let's say he has no hagada or no light and doesn't know the kiddush by heart] he is not allowed to say Shehecheyanu directly on the matza. That would fit the Bur Halacha very well. But now I am utterly mystified at why we say Leshev Basukkah BEFORE Shehecheyanu. Why is Sukkos different than Pesach? Those who want to see the Maamar Mordechai itself, it is available online. Go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/20231 and then to page 408, and read se'if 3. I did not see any clear explanation of why the Al Achilas Matza should come last, but perhaps someone else can find a nuance that I missed. (One last note: Some might suggest that the Shehecheyanu on matza is included in the bracha on the second cup: "v'higiyanu halailah hazeh le'echol bo matzah." But that seems dachuk to me.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:01:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:01:34 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560D830E.3020002@starways.net> On 10/1/2015 3:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the > mitzva of eating matza? > > We say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of shofar, and on the mitzva of > reading Megilas Esther. Why not on matza? Matza is gross. It's the bread of affliction in more ways than one. Yes, there may be people who like it, but I think they're in the minority. To say shehecheyanu on matza or maror would, IMNSHO, verge on a bracha l'vatala. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 12:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nusach Ari (Lubav) questions Message-ID: <560D8969.3080701@sero.name> Two questions recently occurred to me about the L nusach: 1. Throughout Yom Kippur, every time we mention "yom hakippurim hazeh", the L nusach adds "yom selichas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". This includes the piece between Ki Anu Amecha and Al Chet. But there is one exception: in musaf, in the selichos after the avodah, there is a mention of "yom hakipurim hazeh", and on this occasion it's followed by "yom *mechilas ho'ovon hazeh, yom mikra kodesh hazeh". Why is this one instance different from all the others? 2. Throughout the year the L nusach follows the Sefardi minhag that every time a yomtov is mentioned it's followed by "yom tov mikra kodesh hazeh". On Chol Hamoed the addition is "yom mikra kodesh hazeh". However, unlike the Sefardi minhag, L makes this addition on chol hamoed only in musaf (twice) but not in yaaleh veyavo, whether in davening or benching. Does anyone know why yaaleh veyavo is an exception? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 19:27:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Hojda via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Eitam Henkin, who was murdered today Message-ID: https://eitamhenkin.wordpress.com/ A brilliant talmid chacham, highly-original thinker, and author of many fascinating ma'amarim and an important sefer on Hilchos Tola'im, making the case for a more lenient approach. (Note the range of his writings, on Arukh HaShulkhan, Rav Kook, Historia, book reviews.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 13:52:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 1 23:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 02:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:52:02PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-impromptu-sukka-at-airport.html The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), he isn't under the terminal roof, and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away in a ruach metzuyah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 08:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] is it kosher? In-Reply-To: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> References: <20151002063218.GA22232@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <560EA1CC.40704@sero.name> On 10/02/2015 02:32 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The most obvious question would be whether it's 7 x 7 tefachim, and 10 > tefachim high. (22-1/2 x 22-1/2 in, and 23 in high or so as a smaller > but commonly used tefach.) It seems so, but I'm bad at visually estimated. If a normal sized person can sit in it, as this person clearly is, then it's big enough. > Assuming: he had all three "walls" next to each other before throwing > on his sekhakh (ta'aseh velo min ha'asui), He must have had them all there, or the schach would have fallen down. > he isn't under the terminal roof, That's a fair assumption from the fact that he's on the footpath, and simply from the fact that this is an obvious thing to look for. > and he has enough luggage on the carts that they wouldn't blow away > in a ruach metzuyah. The carts themselves would be heavy enough for that. Also, in that spot, sheltered on at least one side by the terminal building, a ruach metzuya would be fairly weak. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:23:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?A_Very_Urban_Sukkos_=96_A_Very_Special_Su?= =?iso-8859-1?q?kkos?= Message-ID: <20151002192310.6DFC51839FF@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/pzebwt8 Sukkos ? for many, it?s summer?s last hurrah. Being outdoors, hopefully in green, lush and warm (or not too cold) surroundings. A pleasant return to nature before autumn really kicks in. A great time to spend away from home, perhaps in a rural environment. (Imagine spending Sukkos at a sleepaway camp or a bungalow colony ) Sukkos is the singular Yom Tov when getting out of the city is truly appealing and really seems like a must. But alas, I have been privileged to spend Sukkos for the past several years in a heavy-duty urban environment ? and I would not trade this unique experience for most anything in the world. For us urbanites, Sukkos means schlepping our food and everything else to a downstairs building courtyard sukkah or a shul sukkah; it means a lack of privacy during meals; it means outside city noise as we eat, learn and even sleep in the sukkah. Who needs it? On the contrary, the urban Sukkos experience has taught me so much about Sukkos and Yom Tov in general, and it can incredibly enrich our appreciation for the Moed (holiday period) and its important values. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 2 11:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" Message-ID: Gut'n Moed, Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Everywhere else you have ?U-minchatam? but here only "minchatam". Any insights? I?ve checked many different sources and it is never even addressed. Moadim L'simchah and Shabbat Shalom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 3 22:23:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 01:23:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vesamachta beChagecha Message-ID: <20151004052359.GA19018@aishdas.org> The following was posted in the Facebook group "Chareidim Yisraelim" by a R' Tal Or. Translation from the Hebrew, mine. -Micha Something I learned from the Admor of Seret-Vizhnitz [R' Eliezer Hager, Chaifa]: How can you be happy when the situation is difficult, and everything around us is black? As a young woman I was priviledged to have received an audience with him, an he sat and talked with me for about an hour. He saw that I was very upset about some matter, and although I did not say it in those words, he understood on his own that the matter overshadowed my joy of life. He therefore toldme something personal: On Simchas Torah, Nazis came to his town [Seret] in Romania, gathered the Jews, and put them on trins. It was already at an advanced stage of the war. In a cattle car, which had room for maybe 30 people, the Nazis crammed in 80 Jews. The suffocation was difficult, it was impossible to move, and ... "We knew exactly where they were taking us" said the Rebbe zt"l. "We already knew, it was not like the beginning of the war, when the Jews did not know. The train began to travel to Auschwitz, when we were packed inside without food or water, we decided that, since it is a day of Simchat Torah - we'll be happy! We knew where we were going and what awaits us, and we decided to rejoice. "One of the Jews found in his pocket a small siddur, raised it high, and we acted as though this siddur was a sefer Torah. "We sang and we did hakafos, danced in the train (!!!) and we were happy. We were truly happy." The Rebbe did not tell me what the take-away lesson was. I understood myself. In any state, a Jew can be happy!!! It's a matter of ... decision. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 00:59:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 03:59:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151004075931.GA18243@aishdas.org> >From http://interestingengineering.com/skarp-kickstarter/ Skarp raises $2 million on Kickstarter in less than 10 days October 2, 2015 Alan Adamu Skarp is redefining something that we all use, a razor. While it looks like a conventional razor, it works in a completely different way. Instead of using the old fashioned blade, Skarp razor uses lasers to cut your hair, and that is what makes this design very interesting. ... The laser is designed to cut through the hair at a very close shave, making it feel smoother than ever. Another interesting aspect of this design is that it is claimed to leave no scratches, razor burns, infections, itches, accidental cuts and irritations... .... After over a decade of research, Morgan [Gustavsson MBBS] discovered a chromophore in human hair that gets cut when it comes in contact with a certain wavelength of light. These so-called chromophores are particles within the human hair that have the ability to absorb certain wavelengths of light. What is interesting about this discovery is the fact that this chromophore is present in every single human being, meaning that this laser could be used to cut the hair of any person, irrespective of gender or race. ... Copyright 2015 Interesting Engineering All Rights Reserved Insert obvious halachic question here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 11:39:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! Message-ID: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! From: To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Rafael Medoff" <rafaelmedoff at aol.com> Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! by Rafael Medoff (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time when other Jews are dying." Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to entertain the newlyweds. The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the ruins of Jerusalem. This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend beyond one's immediate family. The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish peoplehood. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and solidarity .The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense of responsibility in the future." One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat school, where so many young women from our community have studied. If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the cancelation. Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 4 12:05:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:05:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: (Refer to the original post for more information about how this shaving device works.) The first and most obvious comparison would be to a lift-and-cut electric shaver, which many forbid because it cuts the hair too close. However, I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can distinguish between hair cells and skin cells. (I imagine that the designers have already solved this, or else everyone would consider it unsafe.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 6 20:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Happy Isru Chag Message-ID: I was just wondering if anyone agrees with my analogy that Isru Chag is like Melave Malka. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 7 04:54:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? Message-ID: As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis.This applies to both the full Hallel and the "half Hallel", for all occasions, in all minhagim, and the only exception (by obvious necessity) is the Seder night. My question is why we don't seem to take the rule of "Tadir v'she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when choosing between two mitzvos, all else being equal, we do the more frequent one first. According to this rule, we ought to say Hallel after Krias Hatorah on Chanuka (and Yom Haatzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim), and after Musaf on all other days. After all, we read the Torah 3 mornings per week, plus holidays, which is close to 200 times per year even if we omit Shabbos mincha. And Musaf - let's see... somewhere around 52 Shabbosim, 18 Rosh Chodesh, and a bunch of other holidays. By comparison, even in Chu"l Hallel is said only about 45 (8 Pesach, 2 Shavuos, 9 Sukkos, 8 Chanukah, approx 18 R"C) times. The only explanation I can think of is to count each Musaf as distinct, because it has a distinctive Korban and text, and also counting each Krias Hatorah as distinct because it has a distinct text. If we do that, then Hallel will be far more frequent, even if we count the full Hallel and "half Hallel" separately (because they too have distinct texts). Is this the reason, or is there something else that I missed? Akiva Miller (AkivaGMiller gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:35:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:35:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel Message-ID: First I am curious if anyone know if most of the esrogim sold in the US this year were from Israel or from Morrocco/California or other places. Enclosed are directions from R Kelelmer of West Hempstead on how to treat esrogim of shemitta The following are guidelines concerning the use of Esrogim after the conclusion of Yom Tov as they relate to Shemittah (the 7th year in Israel) 1. Any esrog picked in Chutz- L?aretz (outside Israel) one may use for any constructive purpose (e.g. cooking / crafts). Otherwise one can discard the Esrog. However the minhag is to wrap it in plastic before discarding. This also includes leftover parts of the Esrog. These Esrogim do not carry any prohibitions relating to Shemittah. 1. Esrogim picked ? or which have become ripe during the 7th year in Israel, carry a special set of Halachos highlighting their sanctity. One of the Halachos is the prohibition to initially export Esrogim from Israel to Chutz L?aretz. One of the exemptions to this prohibition is the concept of ?Otzar Bais Din? (treasury of a Rabbinic court) which hires farmers to harvest produce with great latitude ? allowing them to perform work in the orchards/ fields which would not normally be allowed to the individual farmers. These Esrogim may be exported. Indeed you may have notice on your esrog box a seal of a particular Bais ? din with the words: ?Otzar Bais Din?. These Esrogim according to most Poskim allow the marketing of Esrogim in Chutz L?aretz, and the charge for the Esrog is for the payment of the farmers whom the Bais ? din hires. If your esrog box does not carry such a seal please contact Rabbi Kelemer or Rabbi Goller. 1. Esrogim from Israel carry kedusha even if purchased through ?Otzar Bais Din? and are treated as sacred fruit. As mentioned they can be used for normative purposes- however any leftover parts must be placed in a container (preferably with a note saying ?Sheviis produce?. (A sheviis bag/ box designated to eventually be discarded.) One waits until these parts are no longer edible (or otherwise no longer usable for any purpose) and then discarded with the container sealed. Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. 1. Unfortunately, there is much confusion as to the caliber of present ?Otzar Botei Dinim? and their detailed observance of the Halacha. In our community the Esrogim with the seal of the Bais Din of the Chassidic sect of Belz have been marketed and are highly reliable. 1. Finally, you may have heard ? or previously followed the practice ? of returning the Esrog to Israel. This is indeed an intelligent chumra which a minority of Poskim require. If you chose to do so you may leave your esrog in a box in the office lobby designated: For Israeli Esrogim.? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 00:36:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: demons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: from the sefer of Shnerb (keren zavit) on parshat ha-azinu He brings that according to most commentators the Amorain of Bavel neleived in "sheidim" (see eg baba Batra 73a, meilah 17, SA OC 179:109). Rambam never explicitly denied demons but rather whereever they appear in halacha would bring a different rationale. His son R Avraham was more explicit. In the late 1800s there were 3 hospitals in EY (Rotschild, Bikur Cholim and Misav Ledach) (actually in modern terms they were more clinics) For those that couldn't afford to pay there were women who would take care of the demons, one of the rabbis from Syria (R Mnesahe Sathom) declared this was AZ. in a sefer of 127 pages. Much deals with the opinion of the Riaz who seems to allow it. Even the Abarbanel opposed the Rambam based on parshat Haazinu. Shut Maharam Lublin 116 discusses the case of a woman who had an affair. The woman clains the partner was not human but a demon. Maharam not only is "matir" the woman but claims that this type of affair is allowed! see aslo Chida (Chaim Sheal 1:53) and Bet Shmuel (EH 6:17) agree. The amazing story occurred about 100 years ago in Chotcha in Slovakia (Ausrian-Hungary empire) A woman gave birth though it was obvious that he husband was not the father (eg he was away over 1 year) allowed the woman to remain with her husband and said the child was not a mamzer based on the teshuva of the Maharam of Lublin! There were debates about this psak and in 1939 R Miller (shut chaye Asher 123) discusses a case of a shidduch with the Chotcha family which many refused to marry descendants of the family. R Miller allows the shidduch to be cancelled without a fine and says that the descendants of this family are known to be trouble-makers. According to the yiddish wikipedia this family is one of the prominent families in the Satmar community in Williamsburg!!! For Shnerb's cute remark on this case see his book -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:36:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151008163628.GA31210@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:56:08PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Rabbi Zev Leff discussed this in his Shabbos Shuvah derashah. (Which BH ran 2-1/2 hours long, just 2 weeks after the whole family converged at his bedside expecting the worst!) I was in Moshav Matityahu and had the opportunity to attend; but thanks to being away in Israel in an apartment without reliable wifi, I didn't get to writing this email until back home and much of the detail forgotten. Of that, about an hour was on this very topic. Although most of his shiur was on the "emulation" model I took for granted, as that was the position of most of the acharonim he cited. He does also discuss the position of the Benei Yisaschar, that Hashem made a promise about the words themselves. Unfortunately, RZL didn't discuss rishonim, so he had no call to mention Rashi. But among the acharonim he named, the BY was alone in this. Still, RZL gave an explanation to both shitos. He understands the Benei Yisaschar in a manner that isn't all that far from RMYG's post . RZL tied it to HQBH's greater beris to BY, rather than Oheiv amo Yisrael, but still about our invoking the beris rather than earning the outcome through emultion. But by making it about the beris, RZL can consider it an "obligation" on HQBH that can override justice in deciding how to treat us. To add his point that motivated my writing this post: When someone's animal is "roveitz tachas masa'o" there is a lav against ignoring it and not helping the person (even sona'akha) unburdent the animal (Shemos 23:5). The gemara (BM 33a) comments, though, "'roveitz' -- velo ravtzan." This is only if the animal happens to be crouching under this particular load; not if the animal is a croucher by nature, and would do so under normal loads. RZL explains "whomever says Hashem is a Vatran" will be punished for it because that says that "leis din veleis Dayan". But that doesn't rule out a Dayan who sometimes is mevateir in favor of delaying justice until after meeting other goals. (I since saw that the Rizhiner Rebbe said something similar about the grammar of the siddur's "ki Atah Salchan leYisrael". HQBH doesn't merely occationally solei'ach...) This is the central point of Zikhronos and the role of mentioning on RH the concept of Hashem "remembering" berisim. RZL also addressed the evidentiary problem -- the fact that many tzadiqim have said the 13 Middos shortly before tragedy struck them. Promising that the prayer will not return empty doesn't mean that it will return with what we asked for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:19:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:19:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva Message-ID: In the latest shiur of Rav Zilberstein we had a controversy. Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai (in brief): A poor man went a robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions after learning that ones income is pre-determined. He then returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. A short time later the widow came to the Ben Ish Chai and requested that he suggest a shidduch. Ben Ish Chai suggested this man (thief) and in fact they got married and lived haooily married without the wife ever knowing the story. R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. R Zilberstein quoted the Steipler who claimed that if a person has a blemish (mum) that would prevent a marriage but would be overlooked once the marriage was successful then one did not reveal this before the marriage and it certainly is not a "mekach taut". However, R Zilberstein felt that robbery was such a serious crime that it would not be overlooked after the marriage and returning the items was not sufficient. The discussion ended in a stalemate with most doctors and R Zilberstein sticking to their opposing sides. However, R Zilberstein did admit that since Ben Ish Chai did it he (R Zilberstein) cannot oppose it even though he doesn't understand it. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:34:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:34:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] LXX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008183416.GC8107@aishdas.org> Only 2 of the 15 loose translation listed in Megillah 9a-b are in the LXX. But there is another alternative to saying the gemara was ahistorical -- the extant LXX isn't the Targum Shiv'im (72, really) but an Early Xian adaptation of it or some other translation. Thus the use of parthenos (virgin) for alma in Yeshaiah 7:14 and some other christological adaptations. Then the Xian test was accidentally renamed when confused with the famous translation. Or, intentionally passed off a the Targum Shiv'im, so as to give artificial authority to those partisan adaptations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 08:27:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] LXX Message-ID: looking at this text [] https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ , according to chazal, wasn't the first word they gave ptolemy [theos] ? did the Greeks rewrite what the zkeinim gave them ; or is that medrash not literal? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 09:48:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] teshuva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55fb97b08c8d421c854f23db0349dee0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> R Zilberstein was unhappy how the Ben Ish Chai could suggest this marriage and felt that in fact it was a "mekach taut" since if the widow ever found out about the robbery she would immediately demand a divorce. Most of the doctors in the audience disagreed and felt that since the man returned the money he was on the high level of ball teshuva. R Zilberstein's response was that may be true between man and G-d but he wouldn't want his daughter to marry such a man. I brought up the story of Resh Lakish and R Yochanan and his response was that Chazal had ruach hakodesh to understand the potential of Resh Lakish. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I might suggest it depends on the nature of the ?tshuva?. IIRC R? YBS (based on the Rambam in hilchot tshuva) differentiated between tshuva for a specific item (which could be based on practical considerations as well) versus a tshuva personality change (much as a dieter based on tactical considerations often achieves results but then does not maintain that result long term but one who changes his eating habits can maintain the new normal). In this case, if it was the first type, the person is still a ganav personality, in the second he is a new man. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:51:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5616BB43.8040106@zahav.net.il> Rav Druckman was basically raised by Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. When the latter died, on Purim, Rav Druckman said that today is a day of celebration. Tomorrow, we'll mourn. Ben On 10/4/2015 8:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and > pausing to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and > about what practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of > political action, to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask > of American Jewry today? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:42:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:42:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 02:52 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >Professor, what allows you, collectively, the >community, to publicly mourn on the Chag?? Not >having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. ? I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over the centuries. I do not stay for Hakafos at night on ST. There were no Hakafos at night in Germany, and, IMO, the reading of the Torah at night is problematic. On ST morning I ran the Hashkama Minyan at the YI of Ave J in Flatbush. We started at 7 am and order and decorum were the themes of the day. The Hakafos were timed and took about 35 minutes total in time. There was quiet during the davening both for Shachris and Musaf. The kohanim were told that they would duchan during Musaf, and there would be singing during the duchening as on other Yomim Tovim. Since there is no drinking during shachris, indeed, there is no drinking during davening at all, I saw no reason for the Kohanim to duchan during shachris. (BTW, Rabbi Arthur Scroll mentions in his Machzor that some congregations duchan during musaf on ST. I consider our minyan "some congregation.") We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed in this fashion IMO. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 11:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: Professor, what allows you, collectively, the community, to publicly mourn on the Chag? Not having the 7th hakafa does not sound like an appropriate halachic response. On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 23:59:19 -0400 > Subject: [RCA Forum]: Fwd: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > From: > To: rca-member-discussion-forum at googlegroups.com > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Any thoughts > on doing something, or not,to acknowledge the current situation? > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Rafael Medoff" > Date: Oct 3, 2015 10:28 PM > Subject: fyi - Cancel Simchas Torah! > To: rafaelmedoff at aol.com > > CANCEL SIMCHAS TORAH! > > by Rafael Medoff > > (Dr. Rafael Medoff is the founding director of The David S. Wyman > Institute for Holocaust Studies, and winner of a 2015 Rockower Award from > the American Jewish Press Association for Excellence in Jewish Journalism.) > One of the most poignant anecdotes I have encountered in thirty-plus years > of Holocaust research came out of an interview I conducted many years ago > with the daughter of a Brooklyn rabbi. > > She told me of a remarkable rule that her father, Rabbi Baruch David > Weitzmann, imposed on his Brownsville congregation in 1942, after the first > reports about the ongoing mass murder of Europe's Jews were confirmed. > > "He wanted us to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews who were being killed in > Europe," the rabbi's daughter recalled. "So if somebody wanted to get > married--and there were a lot of these situations, involving boys who were > about to go into the army--they came to our house, there was a little > chuppah, some cake and soda, nothing more. No celebrations, no dancing, > just the chuppah. He explained to us that you cannot celebrate at a time > when other Jews are dying." > > Consider, for a moment, how drastically this deviated from normative > Jewish practice. The mitzvah of making a bride and groom happy at their > wedding is considered so important that it is one of the few commandments > which supersede the obligation to study Torah. Normally stoic rabbis set > aside their books to take part in wild dancing and assorted ribaldry to > entertain the newlyweds. > > The Talmud (Tractate Brachot 6-b) declares that one who gladdens the > hearts of the bride and groom at their wedding "merits to acquire the > knowledge of the Torah." One Talmudic sage compares making newlyweds happy > at their wedding to bringing a sacrifice in the Temple in ancient > Jerusalem; another says it is the equivalent of rebuilding some of the > ruins of Jerusalem. > > This is the mitzvah that Rabbi Weitzmann in effect temporarily suspended > in 1942, in order to raise Jewish awareness of the mass murder in Europe > and, hopefully, galvanize his congregants to action. The importance of > feeling another Jew's pain, he decided, took precedence over the obligation > to celebrate at a wedding. There is a time for singing and dancing, but > there is also a time for mourning--and mourning sometimes must extend > beyond one's immediate family. > > The very existence of the American Jewish community, after all, is based > on the premise that Jews should care about, connect with, and assist each > other. We are not merely a haphazard mass of individuals who happen to > practice similar religious rituals in our private lives. We join > together--in prayer, in celebration, and in other activities of communal > partnership. The classic United Jewish Appeal slogan, "We are one!," > resonated deeply precisely because it spoke to the essence of Jewish > peoplehood. > > Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, in his seminal book "Were We Our Brothers' > Keepers?," confronted the painful fact that most American Jews in the 1940s > failed to adopt an appropriate sense of urgency with regard to the plight > of Europe's Jews. "One looks in vain," he writes, "for a sign that American > Jews altered some aspect of their lifestyle to indicate their awareness of > the plight of their European brothers [and] keep the matter at the > forefront of their consciousness and to generate feelings of sympathy and > solidarity?.The Final Solution may have been unstoppable by American Jewry, > but it should have been unbearable for them. And it wasn't. This is > important, not alone for our understanding of the past, but for our sense > of responsibility in the future." > > One wonders how Rabbi Baruch David Weitzmann would have responded to this > week's brutal murders by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel. Two rabbis > stabbed and shot to death in the streets of Jerusalem. A young couple > gunned down in front of their four children. The latter attack hit > particularly close to home for American Jews, as one of the victims, Rabbi > Eitam Henkin, was the son of the renowned educator Rabbanit Chana Henkin, > who has touched our lives through her writings, lectures, and her Nishmat > school, where so many young women from our community have studied. > > If he were alive today, maybe Rabbi Weitzmann would cancel the singing and > dancing of this year's Simchas Torah holiday. Maybe he would say this is a > time to feel the tsa'ar of the Jews in Israel, not a time for celebrating. > > But today's Jewish community may not be ready for such a dramatic step. > Perhaps something more modest would be in order. There are seven extended > dances in the synagogue during the Simchas Torah celebrations. Why not > cancel the seventh one? --and, of course, explain the reason for the > cancelation. > > Still too drastic? How about just shortening the last dance--and pausing > to speak about the Henkins, about their orphaned children, and about what > practical steps American Jews can take, in the realm of political action, > to respond to the murders. Is that too much to ask of American Jewry today? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 12:55:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:55:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my > opinion. > > That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on ST is > not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of food, > silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST. Have a look at A. > Ya'ari's sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah to see how ST was celebrated over > the centuries. > SNIP > I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can proceed > in this fashion IMO. > > YL > > A/A is for discussion. What does running a Minyan with your decorum rules and your timing have to do with cancelling the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy? The premise of the piece that you posted is to have some mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. That is what I am commenting on. We can have another conversation about the halalchically appropriateness of the various practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:28:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 03:55 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A/A is for discussion. ? > >What does running a Minyan with your decorum >rules and your timing have to do with cancelling >the 7th hakafa to mourn a tragedy?? The premise >of the piece that you posted is to have some >mourning /awareness of tragedy during the Chag. >? That is what I am commenting on.? We can >have another conversation about the >halalchically appropriateness of the various >practices done in many shuls on Simchas Torah. One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, so what is the big deal? The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 13:43:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:43:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:42:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I merely sent out an email that I received. It is not necessarily my opinion. But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. : That being said, IMO I think that much of what goes on in shuls on : ST is not appropriate. Drunkenness, eating large quantities of : food, silliness, etc. are, IMO, not appropriate for ST... I have not been in a shul that tolerated silliness (kids tying the men's talleisim together, sprinkling water on the bal tefillah when he says "umorid hageshem" etc...) in decades. There are also major halachic problems discussed here in the past with the evening hakafos. And other pro forma issues with standard ST observance. But what does that have to do with an email advocating reducing dancing and hakafos, which were not on your list, in light of tragic current events? How does your dislike for other ST practices relate to a call for aveilus betzibur on Shemini Atzeres? ... : We finished everything by 10:25 am. At least 75 men and boys showed : up for this davening. (We cannot accommodate many more.) Most of whom then eat brunch and join the main dancing, but without a long shleppy wait for aliyos and mussaf taking up much of the afternoon. : I see no need to cancel this kind of ST davening and hence ST can : proceed in this fashion IMO. Vesamachta bechagekha vehayisa akh sameiach is inconsistant with calls for minimizing activities that evoke simach in the majority of people who do not share your proclivities. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 14:29:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > One more time, I did not write the email that you are referring to, and I > personally never advocated cancelling the 7th HaKafa. However, if I > recall correctly, there were places that made only 3 Hakafos and some 5, > so what is the big deal? > > The entire ST has evolved and IIRC correctly 7 hakafos is not in stone. > > YL > I did not say that having 7 hakafos is written in stone. You mentioned the minhagim of Germany. It is not the only place that has minhagim. To deminish the Chag is a serious issue. Below is an excerpt of what happened on Shemini Atzeres in Neriya, the town that the Henkins' HYD lived in. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/simchat-torah-in-the-henkins-hometown A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY?D expressed to another friend that she would like to have a shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing the traditional *hakafot* with the Torah, instead of just watching the men dance (although we do have women?s dancing as well ? including a few women, our youth, and always our rabbanit of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the *hakafot*. When Rabbanit Henkin walked in during the Torah class and was told what it was about, she decided to contribute a few words as well. She gathered all her strength, and, as difficult as it was, she bravely added that the last verse of the Torah says: ?And G-d said unto him (Moses): This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying: Unto thy descendants will I give it, I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but over to there shalt thou not pass? (Deuteronomy 34: 4). Rashi explains the deep significance of this for the whole mission of Moses, that it?s not that you die now and hence you rest, but rather, look, now your mission is to pray and advocate for the nation as they will go onto the next step in their entrance to the land. So too, Rabbanit Henkin continued, Eitam and Naama HY?D are not relived of their duties. They are not resting in peace. They have a mission. And they need to advocate for us at our next step towards redemption. The final circle of dancing went on longer than ever. It could not be stopped, and culminated with the song, ?Am Yisrael Chai.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 15:32:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:32:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008223218.GA2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:47:49AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example : of , well let the reader decide : http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html : : According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is : rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as : to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that : they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages : were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose. Actually, the Maharil's words may be understood as consistaqnt with the Raavad that ashmachtos are Divine suggestions to the rabbis of laws they may find useful to "turn on" some day. In which case, it's not falsehood. Rather, the Maharil is saying that in order to avoid zilzul and qulah, Chazal found a place where HQBH suggested the possibility of the law and made a point of prmulgating it to the masses. It is true that current attitudes of the relative value of intellectual honesty to piety may not have always held in the past. Some of it because information is so much more available, such tricks are bound to backfire more often than aid. But not entirely. I don't think it's mandatory that the Maharil is suggesting piety over honesty here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 16:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008231125.GB2262@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol : hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end "veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" (with an inserted yud). I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:49:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:49:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:29 PM 10/8/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >A few weeks ago, Naama Henkin HY???D expressed >to another friend that she would like to have a >shiur (Torah class) while the men were dancing >the traditional? hakafot? with the Torah, >instead of just watching the men dance (although >we do have women???s dancing as well ? including >a few women, our youth, aand always our rabbanit >of Neriya). That friend spread the word and we >held a shiur in her memory and in her merit during the? hakafot. I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered me for years. IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle. Indeed, still in the 12th century there were two shuls in Egypt, one that leined the way we do now and another that followed the 3 year cycle. Clearly, for those who followed the 3 year cycle there was no ST celebration every year. Hence there was no ST celebration in EY originally. I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but still this is the halacha.) Outside of EY ST is d'rabbonim, so dancing is perhaps permitted, but it seems to me it is certainly not permitted in EY on SA which is also when hakafos are done in EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 01:54:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151009085455.218FA1826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: > > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 00:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] esrogim from Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56176984.6080706@zahav.net.il> He left out that one can do biyur. Ben On 10/8/2015 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Additionally, the cooking and consumption of these Esrogim must take > place before Rosh Chodesh Shevat. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 03:11:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:11:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151009101121.GA2806@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed populace. But the current system has been the norm for some 1200 years. And celebrating a siyum doesn't really depend on the age of the custom for timing the learning. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 8 20:47:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:47:51 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Teshuvah - Menoras HaMaOr Message-ID: Rav Zilberstein brought a story from Ben Ish Chai A poor man robbed the house of a rich widow. A short time later he regretted his actions and returned the stolen items before the widow realized anything was gone. Monoras HaMaOr says that those who transgress sins that are intuitively understood to be wrong have some internal [self inflicted?] blemish that prevents them attaining Teshuvah about which we say NaAse KeZeChuyos Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 05:11:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 08:11:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> >On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 02:08:56PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: >: Has anyone ever noticed in the Sukkot Torah reading, third day of chol >: hamo?ed, the word "minchatam" does not carry a vav? (29:24, 1st word) R Micha wrote: >Shemini Atzeres (pasuq 37) too, but that's a different yom tov. > >Other alterations in the mussafim for Sukkos: Most days end >"veniskah". But day 2 ends "venikeihem", and day 6 ends "unsakheha" >(with an inserted yud). > >I recall that the extra letters are two used and a mem, spelling >the "mayim" of nisuch hamayim, but I forgot how it worked. The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun points that out) But that still leaves the original question unanswered: what to do with and/or why the lack of a vav in 29:24? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 04:46:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:46:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617A8FC.5080006@zahav.net.il> I believe that you brought this issue up before. Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? On 10/9/2015 10:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I am going to take this opportunity to raise a point that has bothered > me for years. > > IMO ST has no place in EY. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:48:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> <20151009154259.D3BA01810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617E1E6.7010906@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:42 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Destroyed implies to me violence. And the Portuguese conquest was not violent?! The Jews were not expelled under threat of death if they stayed?! That's not violence?! -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I fail to understand why when the Jews returned to EY they adopted the yearly cycle of completing the reading of the Torah rather than going back to the original 3 or 3 and half year cycle. Why would they have done that? Why should they have abandoned their own minhagim and taken on those of an extinct community? Even if they knew of that community's minhagim, which is doubtful, how were those minhagim relevant to them? Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. Some of the refugees ended up in New York and founded Shearith Israel. Is it your position that centuries later, when Jews once again settled in Recife, they ought to have turned themselves into S/P?! [Email #2] On 10/09/2015 04:49 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Add to the this fact that one is not supposed to dance on Shabbos and > Yom Tov. (I know that today there are many who are maikel, but > still this is the halacha.) Those of us who are meikil believe that it is *not* the halacha. Whether because we follow Tosfos that the gezera no longer applies, or because we hold that "rikud" means jumping, and dances in which one always has at least one foot on the floor were never banned in the first place. [Email #3] On 10/09/2015 04:54 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 04:43 PM 10/8/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >> But you do state your opinion when you reposted the email: >> > I like the sentiment. Not sure about the actual suggestion. > Not true. Again, these were not my words, but were those of the person who sent me the email. You sent them to the list, therefore they were your words. Anything you send to the list is your words, whether you composed them yourself or copied them from someone else. If you are quoting someone else, it is up to you to say so. And forwarding an article implies your endorsement, unless you expressly say otherwise. [Email #4] On 10/09/2015 06:11 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read > : according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... > I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. No, it was not an exact number of years, and there was no particular time that it started. Nor was every shul in the same town on the same schedule. Each shul held a Simchas Torah whenever it reached Vezos Habracha and restarted from Bereshis, and all the Jews of the town would come and celebrate with that shul. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:36:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008204355.GA25045@aishdas.org> <20151009092200.D6D0E181EE0@nexus.stevens.edu> <524C1CB6-C154-4059-86DC-77096CA3C097@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151009153626.96A401810D0@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:16 AM 10/9/2015, Saul Guberman wrote: >To call your minyan a more genuine simcha when the Flatbush Jewish >area has between 50-100 more Shuls that do not follow your lead, is >difficult to gauge. How many people show up to your shul's main >minyan and how is it run? On ST we have at least twice as many men as the Main Minyan on the morning of ST. I have never davened at the shul's Main Minyan on ST during the day, but from what I have been told things are not very lively and attendance dwindles each year. They have a Kiddush after davening. We do not have one, although this year since the Kiddush for main minyan was in the Bais Medrash where we daven, they offered us some cake and drinks. Almost no one partook. People went home. We do not have our own davening at night on ST, the Main Minyan does. However, they have to import some Lubavitchers on ST at night to make it lively. The kids are given all sorts of nosh. [Email #2] At 11:31 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: >>At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >>>Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >>>completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. >>The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The >>Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with >>them. >And this means it was not completely destroyed how? Destroyed implies to me violence. It ceased to exist would be a better terminology. Did you read my article? If not, then please do. It is informative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:31:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5617DDE6.1090705@sero.name> On 10/09/2015 11:21 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >> Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >> completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. > The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The > Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with > them. And this means it was not completely destroyed how? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 08:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> References: <20151004183930.AB7CF18397D@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008194222.79D9B18261F@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151008202831.ACFA9180FA6@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151009084939.9BF091826A6@nexus.stevens.edu> <5617D724.4080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151009152155.1F30B180A6A@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:03 AM 10/9/2015, Zev Sero wrote: >Recife used to have a large Spanish-Portuguese kehillah, which was >completely destroyed when Portugal conquered it. The Jewish community of Recife was not "completely destroyed." The Jews were allowed to leave and to take most of their possessions with them. See my article "Recife - The First Jewish Community in the New World" The Jewish Press, June 3, 2005, page 32. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 3. (Also available at http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/story/history20050830.html) YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 9 09:40:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:40:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] THE MISSING "VOV" In-Reply-To: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> References: <20151009121128.WPWQ18049.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109> Message-ID: <20151009164035.GF26180@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : The two extra mems (from day 2 and 6) and the extra yud on day 6 : (un-sacheha rather than v'niska) spell mayim. (Artscroll's Tikkun : points that out) Off-list, REMT emailed me citing the bottome of Taanis 2b off-list. (In case you wanted to know where R' Scroll got it from.) :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 10 10:03:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:03:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RYBS on the moon Message-ID: When the first astronaut landed on the moon and it was broadcast across the world, a number of Jews didn?t want to believe it was possible, because of what it says in Tehillim 116 R? Yosef Scheinberger (from the Eida Chareides) was visiting New York at the time and went to visit Rav Soloveitchik at his apartment on YU campus to discuss this issue with him, and he said that many of the residents in Meah Shearim were depressed over this and maybe the Rav could provide guidance. Rav Soloveitchik answered based on a Ramban (very beginning of Bereshis) where the intention of the pasuk is that the moon stars and sun are part of the creation of ?????, as is everything else mentioned during the 7 days of creation. The angels and celestial upperworlds are never mentioned in the Torah, and those are the things created when it says differently That is what the pasuk in Tehillim means includes the moon and stars. R? Scheinberger shared this explanation with the residents of Meah Shearim and they were appeased and were grateful to the Rav for his explanation. see divrei harav p243 for the Hebrew pesukim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 11 19:39:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:39:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: >: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better >: understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully >: understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in >: depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... > RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. Just had a chance to look at Pachad Yitzchak, and while it's definitely a good work on Jewish hashkafah, it's not what I'm looking for in terms of an expository work that explains Sukkot in depth and explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how they fit into a unified conceptual framework. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 04:02:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better > understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully > understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in > depth than Sefer HaToda'ah.... I know it's late but Succos Inspired by Moshe Gersht is a great book on Sukkos - http://www.feldheim.com/succos-inspired.html -- Shui Haber "The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 05:16:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:16:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: You might enjoy some of RYBS's Drashot found here: http://www.noraosharav.com/index.html Some of them are quite substantial and certainly explore the Mitzvot and Concepts of the Holiday with an eye toward placing them in a unified conceptual framework. - Mordechai From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:38:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012153809.GA7017@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:37:48PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were : considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? I do not. SDo, I'll instead complicate the question. There are two kinds of mitzvos for which the term might be uplied: a- Mitzvos that are an obligatory precondition to or manner for doing a reshus: shechitah (if you want to eat meat), tzitzis (if you want to wear a four-cornered garment during the day), matzah on Pesach after the first night (if you want to eat a baked good) or sukkah during most of Sukkos, eruv chatzeiros, gittin... To disambiguate, Rav Dovid Lishtitz called these mitzvos matirim. b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc... This is the more literal mitzvah qiyumis, but is far less common. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 08:36:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Maybe they don't fit into a unified conceptual framework? On 12 October 2015 at 03:39, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: > > explains all of the various mitzvot and concepts of the holiday and how > they fit into > a unified conceptual framework. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 07:55:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:49:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: IMO ST has no place in EY. The Torah in EY was originally read >: according to a 3 or 3.5 year cycle... >I thought it was a 3 yr cycle from Shavuos to the third Shavu'os after. According to one of the seforim that I have in some places it was 3 years and in others it was 3.5. And, not everyone read the same portion of the Torah on a given Shabbos! IIRC there is no mention of Shavuous as the starting or ending point. >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed >populace. Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. [Email #2] At 08:53 AM 10/12/2015, Ben Waxman wrote: >I believe that you brought this issue up before. Probably. It is something that has bothered me for some time. >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:43:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:43:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55:35AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : >The 3 yr cycle is one of the examples cited to show the EY origins of : >Ashkenaz, actually. So you could make a stronger argument that Ashkenazim : >have less reason to observe Simchas Torah than does EY's more mixed : >populace. : : Cited by whom and where? My understanding is that in Bavel they : leined the entire Torah yearly as we do now and it EY it was the 3 or : 3.5 cycle. It has nothing to do with Ashkenazim as far as I know. Egypt too, according to R' Binyamin miTudela who visited in 1170. And the Rambam mentions an alternate minhag of three years in Tehillah 13:1, also compiled between 1170 an 1180, when he was in Egypt. But he considers the 1 yr minhag "haminhag hapashut" (as in nispasheit). Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just assumed they were identical. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 10:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:20:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012150013.C4492182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561BEBEF.1010400@zahav.net.il> Because history and the halachic process / development of minhag didn't stop in the 12th century. Ben On 10/12/2015 5:00 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 09:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:48:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] naanuim style Message-ID: http://thepartialview.blogspot.com/2015/09/video-rav-chaim-kanievsky-shaking-lulav.html some i thought are makpid to hold all 4 minim together both hands at one level - a la the guy at the right end of the video. RCK seems to hold here the etrog on a lower line than the other 3 , though all four are in contact... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 11:13:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151012164336.GB22248@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151012181406.8346A18268E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:43 PM 10/12/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read >in a 3 year cycle, as I described. And there was a qerovetz in Mussar >every Shabbbos that refered to the week's haftarah, which was also as per >the three year cycle. It suggests also what they were leining that week, >from which historians of halakhah surmized that Bereishis was on Shavuos. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, Now as I understand it, the 3 year cycle had pretty much disappeared by this time. The synagogue in Egypt that is reported in the 12th century to have leined based on the 3 year cycle was an exception. Thus, how can you assert that "Once Ashkenaz started becoming a major community, most of them too read n a 3 year cycle." It seems that once Ashkenaz became a majority community, no one was following the 3 year cycle. Again, the 3 year cycle was used in EY. >Machzor Vitri (from before Rashi's passing, 1105 CE) mentions Simchas >Torah, Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis. So we're talking VERY early. See the marvelous sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah by A. Ya'ari for the history of the development of Simchas Torah. R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written. His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30. >Prof Ta-Shma links the Ashkenazi 3 yr cycle to the EY origins of many >of Ashkenaz's pesaqim and minhagim. But it sounds from what you're >saying that the early Ashk version of the cycle was more rigid than >the original. I had simply not considered the possibility, and just >assumed they were identical. I again I cannot understand this given that the 3 year cycle was abandoned before Ashkenaz became a dominate force in the Jewish nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 12 13:29:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cancel Simchas Torah! In-Reply-To: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151012145542.899541815DF@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561C183D.8090605@sero.name> On 10/12/2015 10:55 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >Why stop with Simchat Torah? Why not claim that we should revert to >> >minhag Eretz Yisrael from the 12th century across the board? > Indeed, why wasn't this done in EY? Why bring "Golus" practices to > EY by not going back to the way things were done in EY originally? Why would Jews, arriving in a place where there was no established kehillah, abandon their own minhagim and adopt those of Jews who once lived there, *even if they knew* these minhagim (which they would have had no reason to do)? I asked you this before, and I know you read the message, but you chose not to reply. Do you think that when Jews once more settled in Recife in the 19th or 20th century they should have converted to S-P, just because the previous kehilla there had been S-P?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 01:17:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:17:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Alert - Esrog Disposal Message-ID: <20151013081741.E066B18295C@nexus.stevens.edu> [Forwarded from star-K.org. I plucked this email out of the queue to take the effort to add this prelude because I feel a need to warn the chevrah on a possible health issue with the content of this post. Off topic, but might be importat. Check the metzi'us of the safety of (i) eating esrog jelly. I was told by a grower that given the value of the crop, the cost of a single bug bite blackening the skin, import/export requirements, and the assumption tht it won't be eaten, they use a LOT of insecticide. He discouraged me from my annual practice of Coke-with-esrog on Simchas Torah a number of years ago (non-shemittah). Google says he is not alone. -micha] October 12, 2015 Esrog Disposal Esrogim exported from Eretz Yisroel for Succos 5776 (2015) have kedushas sheviis (sanctity of fruit of the Shmittah year), and must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. There are a couple of ways to accomplish this: (i) An esrog may be used to make esrog jelly. The remnants of the esrog should be discarded in the manner described below. The esrog jelly must be eaten and not be wasted. (ii) An esrog may be wrapped in plastic and left to rot, after which it may be discarded. [If it is not wrapped in plastic, it will dry out and will not rot. Furthermore, after rotting, the plastic serves the purpose of covering the esrog, so that it will not come into direct contact with the trash.] If the esrog has not rotted by the first day of Shevat 5776 (January 11, 2016), there is an obligation of biur at that time. The esrog should be placed in a public area in front of three Jewish male adults, and the owner should announce that he is declaring the esrog to be hefker (owner less). He (or any Jew) should then take the esrog and dispose of it in the manner described above. It is preferable to send the esrog back to Eretz Yisroel if it is known that biur will take place there. See our other alerts or join our alerts mailing list here: (If the links do not open, please copy and paste into your browser.) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 13 14:39:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:39:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag Simchas Torah at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, certainly in its origins. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 08:18:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag : Simchas Torah at : http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf : From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, : certainly in its origins. As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor of triennial+ Torah reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 09:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:18 AM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:39:30PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: >: I have posted a few pages from Avraham Yaari's book Toldos Chag >: Simchas Torah at >: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_st_bavel.pdf > >: From here I think it is clear that Simchas Torah is a Bavel holiday, >: certainly in its origins. > >As is reading annually. So, any argument to reject ST would in favor >of triennial+ Torah reading. And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 12:55:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561EB338.8070804@sero.name> On 10/14/2015 12:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah > yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original > practice of EY? Asked and answered. Why on earth should they have? Should the Jews who settled in Recife in the 20th century have become S-P, just because the 17th-century kehillah there was?! Of course not. So how is this any different? Why should the Jews who resettled EY have adopted the customs of the Jews who had previously lived there, *even if they somehow knew what those were*? You have seen this several times and have not replied, but instead keep repeating your original question which has no basis. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 14:06:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews : when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the : Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the : original practice of EY? This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo . He took it to the logical conclusion, and reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of Machon Shilo). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:16:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:16:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din Message-ID: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Rav David Stav (chairman of Tzohar) recently ruled that harming neurtalized terrorised would be a "moral breakdown". People who are not involved in murderous activities and those who no longer pose a danger must not be harmed. The blood boils when you see Israeli Arabs, young and old, who have been making their livelihood from Jews, murdering children, soldiers, women and men indiscriminately, without any gratitude. ... It is precisely on these days that the strength and uniqueness of the Israeli society is put to the test. These days, when the boiling blood is mixed with civilian willingness and resourcefulness, it's important to maintain our moral superiority: To avoid harming a person who is uninvolved in murderous activity, and to avoid harming those who have already been neutralized and no longer pose a danger. ... It's not because they are immortal. They deserve to die, but that is not our way. Harming a terrorists who has been neutralized causes double damage: The collateral damage is when these images are distributed, and the main damage is harming our moral norms. We will not stoop down to our enemies' despicableness, and we will not contaminate ourselves with a moral breakdown. ... There is a metzi'us question that is off topic for Avodah and not likely to yeild productive discussion on Areivim: RDS sees the resulting images in the media as increasing the threat to Jewish life. I would have assumed that the overall effect would be to reduce the number of Arabs willing to try copy-cat attacks. I raise the topic of metzi'us not to launch that discussion, but to note the whole calculus involved, that we have to raise this kind of reasoning altogether. Is this kind of math what underlies the mitzvah aspect of a milkhemes mitzvah? Is a defensive war, or a war to kill out a harmful barbarian tribe of killers (Amaleiq) a mitzvah because it means the fewest deaths overall? An obligation to chase the lesser evil? RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. As for the question in my subject line, to elaborate: In war, the calculus of life is much different than in court. Including having more allowance for collateral damage. Does anyone discuss the line between treating an attacker as a criminal, and thus subject to however beis din ought to be judging and punishing benei Noach, and when the attacker is seen as part of a hostile force, where aggression is more readliy legitimate? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 15:32:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014210650.GG24067@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151014223254.96D72180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews >: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the >: original practice of EY? > >This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo >. He took it to the logical conclusion, and >reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the Yerushalmi. >All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram Gaon, >are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY. > >If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why >not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why don't >they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the >Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear masqanah? There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have gone back to and not further. >You're asking why they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei >pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of >Machon Shilo). I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I presume.). Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what was done before the Jews left EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:30:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When to say Hallel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233019.GB21625@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:54:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As far as I know, whenever Hallel is said, it is said immediately after the : Shmoneh Esreh of Shacharis... I believe this is because Hallel is tachanunim, as is placed "basar tzelosana", just as E-lokai Netzor and the other tachanunim in the gemara were. Veyara'ayah, Qaddish Tisqabel is always after tefillah vesachanunim, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'us-hon...." And Qaddish is after Hallel, not separating Shemoneh Esrei and Hallel. The fact that it's a unit with Shemoneh Esrai would explain why we don't insert leining in between, even though it's tadir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:37:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:37:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151014233722.GC21625@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : ..., I was taught that the issur of hashchasa refers not to : the destruction of the beard, but to destruction of the skin, and since ALL : electric shavers have some sort of screen or guard between the skin and the : cutting mechanism, they are all mutar to use. According to this view, I : would imagine that the critical question is how well this device can : distinguish between hair cells and skin cells... It is allegedly tuned to a color which is absorbed by hair but not skin. To quote their kickstarter: After years of research & development, they discovered a chromophore in the hair that would be cut when hit with a particular light wavelength. Chromophores are particles that absorb certain wavelengths (colors) of light. This chromophore they identified is shared by every human, regardless of age, gender or race. I say allegedly because the people at Popular Mechanics believe they're far from prime time, with some science/tech questions still open that may not have resolution. See . Still, here we discuss halakhah, and even if the case turns out to be hypothetical, at least for the foreseeable future, I still think it could push us to turn up some interesting lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:24:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:24:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the Jews when > they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly > as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of > EY? > I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from Spain retained their own minhag in the lands where they were dispersed rather than adopting the local practice, whether in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans or wherever. If this was the case in places where there was already a community with a continuous minhag of its own, then all the more so in EY where (AFAIK) the triennial cycle and other old EY minhagim were no longer current in the 15th century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:13:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: <820e0.46c44d50.4350499b@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Why did the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice of EY? YL >>>>> They realized that a year was a more natural, organic unit of time for the start and completion of anything than a three-year or three-and-a-half-year unit of time, which does not correspond to anything in nature. They also realized that a lot (the majority?) of Jews in Bavel were not coming back to E'Y and saw a unifying advantage in having the Jews of E'Y and those of Bavel read the same parsha at the same time (with minor changes just a few Shabbosim of the year). Also they realized that the hamon am who may not have had their own sifrei Torah in their homes were losing the thread of the story when you started from Bereshis one day and didn't finish until three years later. And people were forgetting too much in between the start of one cycle and the start of the next. Also they prophetically foresaw that an ArtScroll Chumash would have way too many short choppy chapters if there were 162 parshios instead of 54. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 17:21:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:21:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did > the Jews when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" > practice of reading the Torah yearly as was done in > Bavel? Why didn't they go back to the original practice > of EY? Someone once said that if one can phrase his question properly, then he's already done half the work of solving it. In the current case, I think the question is hard to answer because it includes a mistaken premise. You begin by referring to the Jews who "returned to EY". Where were they, prior to this return? Where were they, when they did this return? Were they in Eretz Yisrael? I doubt it. Surely, the Jews of whom you speak did not grow up in Eretz Yisrael. They grew up somewhere else. Presumably, somewhere in "Golus". If so, then they did NOT "adopt" this "Golus" practice, nor any other. All they did was to *continue* the practices that they grew up with. What they might have done - but did not do - was to adopt the practices of the Jews who had previously lived there. Why do you think they should have done that? Do you know of other examples where a community moved to a new area, and adopted the practices of Jews who had lived there once upon a time? R' Micha Berger suggested that according to RYL's reasoning, EY ought to pasken like the Gemara Yerushalmi in areas where the Bavli differs. RYL responded: > There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah > in EY as well as for other things. It seems to me that > this is what they should have gone back to and not > further. You are certainly entitled to our opinion, but if you hope to sway anyone else, your argument should be more substantial than merely how it "seems to" you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 14 16:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger gave some examples: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar Message-ID: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into shul late. He said V'sein Tal Umatar, instead of V'sein Berachah (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:19:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There's no bitul aseh if a man omits tefillin? Could you please elaborate? Actually, RMP noted off-list, there seems to be an explicit gemara, Menachos 44a, where R' Sheishes says that he is mevatal 8 mitzvos -- one for each parashah for each tefillah (2 x 4). Which led me to realize that for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur. How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In Rashi's day, few wore tefillin at all. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order to say Shema without looking like liars. I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no bitul asei in omiting tefillin. There are also the mitzvos for which someone is eino metzuveh ve'oseh. But those too are chiyuvim, just not for this person. Also, in my conditional category, there are mitzvos that are pointless unless one really wants the result. No one would give a gett just to be meqayeim the mitzvah. And then there are mitzvos where one makes a point of meeting the condition -- the way we wear a tallis qatan or tallis just for the sake of wearing tzitzis. (And the machloqes about which of the two is shiluach haqen.) Oi, I forgot so much in the years since Rav Dovid's shiur... I clearly mangled his original thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 03:37:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:37:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 1:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > RDS raises the issues that "the main damage is harming our moral norms", > and many understand the Beris Shalom that HQBH cuts with Pinechas to be > exactly that -- a guarantee against such damage. Certainly soldiers, > and to a lesser extent even mohalim and shochetim, face this issue > of being desensitized. And yet, in all those cases, it is outweighed. WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY, which is brought down l'halakha in all the Rishonim, and is brought in two separate places in the Shulchan Aruch. HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at milchamah) harog. Period. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:26:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:26:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:37:17PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR to RDS, I think his view is trumped by that of RSBY... : HaTov she'bagoyim (b'she'at : milchamah) harog. Period. I mentioned RDS's statement before my question because it appear to me that it's based on the assumption that we are NOT dealing with milchamah. An assessment I also quesion. Which is when I realized I do not know the difference between fighting a group of copy-cat killing and a milkhemes mitzvah (or according to R Yehudah, a defensive war is a third category -- milkhemes chovah). Which is why I asked the chevrah if they knew of a formal definition of where that line would be. Rav Aviner addresses that quote (from Mes Soferim) in the context of mechabelim y"sh at RSA explains it as, "even though he is assessed among the goyim as being good and contructive, kill him." Such as Titus. The Y-mi says it's beshe'as milchamah, as you do. Rabbeinu Bachya says this is only of "haba lehargekha, hashqeim vehorgo". See the teshuvah.. See also by a "Yochanan ben Yaaqov". Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than begoyim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:40:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FC8DE.8040300@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 11:26 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. Clearly changes made for the censors' benefit, and the reader is meant to understand this. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 00:29:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >And indeed this has been my question all >along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >they go back to the original practice of EY? >I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >where they were dispersed... To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence should have been reinstated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 08:09:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'sein Tal U'matar In-Reply-To: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> References: <000a01d1071e$cbafe290$630fa7b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561FC1B8.1020603@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:54 AM, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > I was davening with the chazan this afternoon, as I had come into > shul late. He said V?sein Tal Umatar, instead of V?sein Berachah > (which, for those who come across this in the archives years from > now, is the point of the year we are at now). I was in middle of my > Shmoneh Esrei, though. No one else in shul realized. What would you do? The reason one must go back if one asked for rain when it isn't the rainy season is that rain in the summer is a curse. But it now it really is the rainy season (when is it not?) and we really should be asking for rain, and the only reason we don't is that the irrational minhag of praying for rain only during Iraq's rainy season is too entrenched to overturn. Therefore bediavad if an individual did say "tal umatar" he needn't go back. If the chazan says it, it seems that he does go back, because that is the minhag; however this is at least a weak halacha, so it seems to me that if nobody corrects him then there's no need to be mafsik in davening just to tell him to correct what isn't really a mistake at all. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 09:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151015161553.GE21268@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 01:33:28PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was : enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. Perhaps we can say Hillel decided that the need of the poor to obtain funds meant that we should settle for making a pruzbul as a way of keeping alive the memory of shemittah deOraisa, rather than practicing the full shemittah derabbanan as a "lezeikher". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:04:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:04:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 10:29 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/14/2015, Simon Montagu wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And indeed this has been my question all >> along. Why did the Jews when they returned to >> EY adopt the "Golus" practice of reading the >> Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't >> they go back to the original practice of EY? >> I think as a general rule the Jews expelled from >> Spain retained their own minhag in the lands >> where they were dispersed... > To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews > from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are Ashkenazim today. Lisa > > The practices in EY presumably went back to at least the time of > the second Bais Hamikdash and, to my way of thinking, have greater > "validity." Furthermore, EY has special kedusha, and I would think > that the practices of the Jews in EY also had special kedusha and hence > should have been reinstated. > > YL > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 12:06:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:06:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Milchemes Mitzvah vs Onshei Beis Din In-Reply-To: <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> References: <20151014221646.GA3783@aishdas.org> <561F81DD.9040203@starways.net> <20151015152624.GB21268@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <561FF942.6050401@starways.net> On 10/15/2015 6:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also, there are girsa'os that have beKanaanim or beAKU"M, rather than > begoyim. I don't think we need to take censored sources into consideration. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 14:58:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shaving with a Skarp - permitted? Message-ID: <20151015215811.GA6926@aishdas.org> R Shalom Berger sent me this article by R' Rosen of Machon Zomet's response to this question. See AIUI, he doesn't see a problem of hashchasas zaqein, since it's not a razor. Ths is sereifah, not hashchasah. However, then it comes to pei'os, where the SA (YD 181:3) has a yeis lachush to those who prohibit using scissors too... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 15:15:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah is Really a Holiday for Bavel and not EY In-Reply-To: <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> References: <20151013213948.F131B182BA9@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151014151857.GA24067@aishdas.org> <20151014165445.E197D18314B@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151015072951.A5F8C181E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <561FF8D7.102@starways.net> Message-ID: <56202596.8070203@sero.name> On 10/15/2015 03:04 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >>> >> To my way of thinking there is a difference. The practices that the Jews >> from Spain found in the countries they fled to were "relatively new. " > > I think this was only the case in places that didn't have a strongly > established local custom. Jews who left Spain for Eastern Europe are > Ashkenazim today. Only if you mean "established" in the technical sense of government authority. All over the Mediterranean the Sefardim settled en masse and rather than join the existing communities they founded their own, with their own minhagim, and in many places (including EY) overwhelmed the locals with their numbers. That they didn't do this in Germany and Eastern Europe may be because their numbers were lower, but I think it more likely that it was because the existing kehillos were established in the 1st amendment sense; the government recognised them, and did not allow the practise of Judaism outside them. (That's why, centuries later, RSRH needed German law changed to permit austritt.) -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 19:39:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan, or a Kiyum D'Oraisa, or something else? And is he guilty (b'shogeg) of Bal Tosif for mistakenly thinking that it would be a Chiyuv D'Oraisa? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Return to the Land of Israel Message-ID: <20151016093207.5460A1822D9@nexus.stevens.edu> There has been discussion about why the Jews when they returned to Israel did not adopt the practices of EY regarding the leining of the Torah and other issues. This got me to wondering about when the Jews did return to Israel. The following is from http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/ EARLY MIGRATIONS During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians. In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba?alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazic European community in Israel. In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardic community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. (See Part 47.) Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today. When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century. More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism?the Kabbalah. In mid-1700s a student of the Ba?al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the ?Old Yishuv Court Museum? and learn some fascinating facts about it.) Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century. Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon , numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem. Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel. By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Oct 15 20:39:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Brian Wiener via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] re Teffilin Message-ID: <8dac6081a2c54b64bbd7935e56ddd297@bne3-0007embx.exchange.server-login.com> R Micha wrote.... > How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be > whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW > WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order > to say Shema without looking like liars... Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. Brian Wiener From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 03:18:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : Are you saying that tefillin is a chiyuv d'Oraisa only once per lifetime? : I've heard that before, but have not seen any evidence of it. Any : citations? Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. : Some practical questions: If someone already wore tefillin once before, and : puts them on again now, is it a Chiyuv D'rabanan... Perhaps you lost sight of the subject line? The topic of tefillin came up because I suggested it's a mitzvah wiyumis that is not a mitzvah machshirah (the right way to do something, if you choose to do it -- eg shechitah or eating on Sukkos [after the first night]). Then, in response to a post and an off-list email, I realized I was really saying that like exceeding shiur in general is a mitzvah kihumis, giving daily tefillin as an example. For that matter, so would be spending extra on hidur mitzah. Going beyond the minimum of the chiyuv, though, wasn't really what we were looking for. Then there is the machloqes as to whether yishuv EY is a mitzvah chuyuvis or qiyumis. (I heard R' Eitam Henkin Hy"d has a nice discussion that includes a wide survey, but I haven't found it. My Googling abilities are much weaker in Hebrew.)) This disussion of mitzvah makhshirah vs mitzvah qiyiumis just brought to mind Kant's hypothetical imperative (if you want to tie a knot, you need to get some string) vs. caegorical imperative (what's morally right, something you ought to do unconditional on trying to acheive a particular goal). Excvept that a mitzvah qiyumis isn't an imperative, as by definition there is no chiyuv. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:39:46AM +0000, Brian Wiener wrote: : Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that most people around him didn't. The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 06:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining Message-ID: I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b?al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, ?Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews? which made me realize that the underlying question might be -how did the use of a bal korei change the role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if so, the answer? KT The eternal nation does not fear the long road "?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????" Joel Riich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 16 07:15:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:15:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151016141528.GA5718@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:07PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the : b'al koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" .. Moshav Matityahu's shul has signs warning visiting aveilim that they hold only one aveil says qaddish at a time. The sign credits the MB, but it's the Rama too. In order to accomodate multiple aveilim, they maximize the opportunities any given aveil to say qaddish. Including have an aveil go to the bimah after Qeri'as haTorah to say the Chatzi Qaddish. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 17 11:39:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:39:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kaddish after leining In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I recently queried 'Does your shul ever allow anyone other than the b'al > koreih say the chatzi kaddish after Torah reading?" I heard in respone, > "Actually this is the custom of Sephardic jews" which made me realize that > the underlying question might be -- how did the use of a bal korei change the > role of the oleh? Any thoughts on if this is the right approach and, if > so, the answer? Please see the Shaarei Ephraim's description of the minhag. Perek 10 seif 9. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34320&st=&pgnum=292 A From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 10:03:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151018170318.GD29109@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:19:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I'm shocked, and I'm not exaggerating. Is there no Shehecheyanu on the : mitzva of eating matza? The Avudraham (on the Haggadah ad loc) says we don't make shehachiyanu on Matzah only because Maggid just ended with a berakhah that included "vehigi'anu halaylah hazeh le'ekhol bo matzah umaror." He giest a second answer -- that it's covered by the shehechiyanu in Qiddush. There is a machloqes between the author of Liqutei Ta'amin uMinhagim and R SY Zevin as to whether this premature shehechiyanu would be effective. LTuM questions the Avudraham's 2nd answer because while we have a chiyuv to keep the other mitzvos of Purim in mind when saying shehachiyanu at megillah reading, there is no mention of a parallel requirement here. R' Zevin wrote the author suggesting chiluqim: 1- The Rosh says the shehechiyanu to apply retroactively to bediqas chameitz, which there is also no mention of kavanah -- so later in time, lo kol shekein! 2- The shehechiyanu at Megillah is by default only on megillah. One made at qiddush is for the YT as a whole. ROY (Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach vol 2, pg 23) tells you to have matzah, maror and sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim in mind when saying shehechiyanu in Qiddush. Apparently he assumes the Avudraham's 2nd answer does mean a chiyuv exists. IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. As for not liking matzah... The berakhah would be on the mitzvah, not the food. And mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu, so it should require a similar shehachiyanu either way. Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on a new gun. The literature discusses swords. (Tie in to current events, and his son wanting to have a gun when out in chutzos Y-m.) R' Zilberstein says no, because it's not there for hana'ah, it's there to avoid a threat. RREY didn't understand why that line of reasoning wouldn't exclude making a shehechiyanu on a designer raincoat -- after all, you only wear them to avoid rain. (Li nir'eh RYZ was talking about a cheap utilitarian raincoat and in our case, would only apply to a gun bought for function only -- and not for an effieianado.) I was wondering why RRYE was handling the question in terms of a new keli, and not in terms of whether a hekhsher mitzvah gets a shehachiyanu. After all, if there was no need to defend an attacked Jew, he wouldn't be buying the gun... All of which reminded me of this thread, which is why it got this belated reply. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 13:50:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: R' Micha Berger offered some references to Avudraham, R SY Zevin, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, which he summarized: > IOW, there is a chiyuv to say shehechiyanu on the > mitzvah of matzah, it's just fulfilled in other ways. But that answers a question which is slightly different than the one that I had asked. It answers the question, "Why does it SEEM that we never say Shehecheyanu on the mitzva of eating matzah?" But that wasn't my question. My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. In such a case, he holds the matzah in his hands, and says Hamotzi, Kiddush, Shehecheyanu, and THEN Al Achilas Matzah, and then eats the matzah. As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the Shehecheyanu. This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, but on the sukkah too. In other words: It is very nice that when we are at normal Seder, various poskim tell us to have the matzah in mind when we say the Shehecheyanu at kiddush, or when we say V'higiyanu on the second cup. But law is clarified by the *un*usual cases, such as an abbreviated Seder which doesn't have a second cup. In such a case, it seems that matzah does not get a Shehecheyanu AT ALL. I find that surprising, and even shocking, that sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu, but matzah does not. On a related issue, RMB wrote: > Tangentially: R' RY Eisenman spoke Fri night about > whether there is a chiyuv to make a shehechianu on > a new gun. To me, this sounds relevant to the question of saying Shehecheyanu at Bedikas Chametz. I'm too lazy to look this up directly, but the Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat_Chametz) offers three different answers at footnote 101: > Bear Hetiev says it?s included in Shehecheyanu of Yom > Tov, Pri Megadim M?Z 431:2 says it?s not a mitzvah of > Simcha, Meiri says there?s no Shehecheyanu on Bedika > which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 17:52:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:52:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> On 10/18/2015 04:50 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting Asher > Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor any kind of > chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly on the matzah. By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". > This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we > say Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very > end, specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on > the holiday, but on the sukkah too. I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 18 18:07:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem Message-ID: Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. This announcement is critically important, as we see from several halachos. For example, the announcement itself ought to be made at Maariv (of Shmini Atzeres) but is done at Musaf instead, because more people are at shul for Musaf than for Maariv. Similarly, if someone can't make it to shul for whatever reason, he should delay his private Musaf until he knows that the announcement was made in shul. And the poskim discuss other problems too, like a shul with multiple minyanim, and some are saying Shacharis after another has already said Geshem at Musaf. Why on earth is this announcement so very important? And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Beginning at Maariv tomorrow night in Eretz Yisrael (in December in chu"l), Tal Umatar will be added to the Shmoneh Esreh. I'm sure that there will be reminders of various sorts in all the shuls and via other methods. But none of those reminders are halachically mandated in the manner that the announcement for Geshem is. Why the difference? Both Geshem and Tal Umatar are so important that omitting them requires one to repeat his tefilah. So why is one orchestrated with a special piyut from the chazan, while the other is no more than an instruction in the siddur? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:10:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:52:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The shehechayanu on the first : night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it. Actually, R' Zevin's argument defending the Avudraham was that the shehechiyanu at Qiddush is on the chag, including all its mitzvos. Which is how he distinguished that shehechiyanu from the one made on Purim when reading megillah. Since Purim isn't a chag meriting a shehechiyanu, there is no parallel "umbrella", and one needs to have each of the mitzvos of the day in mind. Is the shehechiyanu actually on the sukkah? What's the source for that? I raised a third possibility -- that the shehechiyanu (like the birkhas hamitzvah) includes /building/ the sukkah. Not the cheftzah itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 11:42:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Actually, the SA (OC 641:1) says what I deduced from R' Zevin's > defense of the Avudraham -- that the berakhah is on making the > Sukkah, not on having the sukkah qua the object. I wrote: "The shehechayanu on the first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah of sitting in it." How is what you wrote not 100% consistent with that? Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having them. And this shehecheyanu is, in addition to the chag, on the new sukkah that one has built (or otherwise acquired). Technically, I suppose, one who builds a permanent sukkah would, in subsequent years, say shehecheyanu before leisheiv basukkah even on the first day; but that is a very unusual case. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 12:08:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <5625397D.8070108@sero.name> <4cda297e4541124e675b771780666eff@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56253F92.9060104@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 02:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > As for berakhos on posessing things... the berkahah is on the first > time you enjoy your new suit, not when you buy it. The thing here is > that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. > Not true. The chiyuv is when you buy it. You actually say it when you put it on. Same with fruit -- the chiyuv is actually chal as soon as you see it, even *before* you buy it, but you say it when you eat it. And that is precisely why the bracha on acquiring a sukkah is said when you first use it. > The thing here is that mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Irrelevant; it's not on the mitzvah but on the sukkah. > This distinction, between a shehechiyanu enjoying on a new keli and > shehechiyanu on a mitzvah one hasn't done in a while, was what > brought me to discussing R' Eisenman's between-minchan-and-maariv > about guns. I wanted to cast the gun in the role of sukkah, RRYE was > treating it like a suit. But the shecheyanu on the sukkah is exactly like shehecheyanu on a suit. I would raise a different objection to shehecheyanu on a new gun: we should not say it for the same reason we don't say it on new shoes, but much more so. A gun is inherently a keli of destruction, which is unfortunately necessary in the current era when there are predators (both human and animal) that need destroying. But just as we pasken that even today a weapon does not have a din of an adornment, because le'asid lavo when it's no longer necessary it will not be worn, so also it's not something whose acquisition should fill us with joy. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:24:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Of *course* it's not on *possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition : on new things; one says it on *acquiring* possessions, not on having : them... Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act of making it. The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. Not directly on the joy of having a sukkah nor on the heksher mitzvah of building it. And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. Which implies a machloqes between the Avudraham, who assumes that the berachah is on the chag, and the Ran. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 19 14:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> On 10/19/2015 05:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Of*course* it's not on*possessing* a sukkah; how could one possibly > : say shecheyanu on possessing anything? Shehecheyanu is by definition > : on new things; one says it on*acquiring* possessions, not on having > : them... > > Correct, but on the joy of ownership, not the act of acquisition. SA OC > 233:4 "she'enin haberakhah ela al yadei simchas heleiv", for he is happy > when he acquires them. I do not think you would say this about a sukkah, > since mitzvos lav leihanos nitenu. Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession, that one is happy to acquire. It's a nice place to sit and enjoy, just like a house. And it's definitely on the acquisition; shehecheyanu is by definition on a chidush, not on a static state of affairs, however happy one is about it. One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. > In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > of making it. I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > The Rama quotes the Ran that if it's raining or for some other reason he isn't sitting in the sukkah, he still has to make a shehachiyanu "mishum sukkah" -- which does seem to be about the cheftzah, not the pe'ulah. Exactly. But it's on the acquisition of the cheftzah, which is a chidush, not on the timeless fact of owning it. > Except that the Rama is extending the SA's pesaq, not contradicting it. > Presumably both are speaking about making a berakhah on the same thing. Exactly. Therefore the SA is saying the same thing. > In any case, it seems from R Zevin's explanation of the Avudraham > that the shehechiyanu is being said on the Chag haSukkos, which then > serves as an umbrella including the specific mitzvos of the chag. He is talking about the normal shehecheyanu, which is said on both of the first nights. That shehecheyanu includes the *mitzvos*, including yeshiva basukkah. It doesn't include the joy over having built (or otherwise acquired) this lovely structure. In *addition* to that, however, the shehecheyanu on the first night does include that extra joy. Since, unlike the joy over fulfilling the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah, that joy isn't bound to the yomtov, and in principle the shehecheyanu ought to have been said *before* yomtov, therefore once we've said it on the first night there is no reason to repeat it on the second night. Even if the first night is "chol" and the second night is "yomtov", the shehecheyanu on the first night was still good for this joy. So on the second night the shecheyanu *doesn't* include it, and is therefore said before leisheiv basukka. > And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. No, he doesn't say that at all. You seem to have seriously misread him. Of *course* one always says shecheyanu at kiddush on both nights, because it's primarily for the chag. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 05:27:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:27:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > One doesn't say shehecheyanu on the anniversary of having bought >> > ones house, no matter how happy one is not to have lost it, and even if > there was a serious danger of losing it during the year. This ties in to a question that has been on my mind this week. Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary, and we don't say sheheheyanu on the anniversary of any of the other nissim done for Am Yisra'el (except the ones with a hag or a mitzva associated with them). I wonder how Rav Goren vesi`ato would respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 06:43:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:43:13 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66C5A21E-DAA7-4ADF-A900-1B21DC9C9D4E@balb.in> RMB asked about the sources from R Eitam Henkin HY'D on mitvah kiyumis etc See http://bit.ly/1L8Jk1G [link to page on eitamhenkin.wordpress.com -micha] And his Techumin article Via my iPhone with economy & solecism From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:15:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151020171511.GC10539@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:50:24PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I wrote in my previous post, this is the sequence prescribed by the : Maamar Mordechai (and cited l'halacha by Beur Halacha 483 "Ad Shegomer" and : Kaf HaHayyim 483:8), who reasons that "birkas zman bichlal kiddush hu" - : Shehecheyanu is part of Kiddush. It seems clear to me that according to : Maamar Mordechai, Beur Halacha, and Kaf HaHayyim, matza is *not* relevant : to Shehecheyanu. Furthermore, this sequence of brachos is exactly parallel : to the way most say Kiddush on the second night of Sukkos (placing Layshev : BaSukkah *after* the Shehecheyanu), and is specifically designed to include : the holiday in the Shehecheyanu, and to *omit* the sukkah itself from the : Shehecheyanu. Doesn't this flow from the discussion I posted? Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. Unlike Purim, which has no chag, and therefore there is no inclusive umbrella. : This is in sharp contrast to the *first* night of Sukkos, where we say : Hagafen, Kiddush, Layshev, and finally Shehecheyanu at the very end, : specifically to insure that the Shehecheyanu is not merely on the holiday, : but on the sukkah too. Which I was arguing is on building the sukkah, hekhsher mitzvah. Because according to the Avudraham (as per R Zevin's diyuq) a berakhah on sukkos would perforce to include sukkah and 4 minim. If there weren't part of mitzvas sukkah that weren't part of the Chag haSukkos, which would be left berakhah-less. Let me now add my own, unsourced, 2c: To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, and I don't know of anyone who has a parallel discussion to that we had abour making a berkhah on building a sukkah. Whereas building a sukkah does require at least inclusion in the "leisheiv basukkah" of the first time you sit there and a shehechiyanu. The first night of sukkos (barring rain) -- which covers the building regardless of any commemorated sefeiqa deyoma. Therefore, matzah on both nights of the seder parallel only the 2nd night of Sukkos (if you were able to sit in the sukkah the first night), the night on which building a sukkah does not require a berakhah, but we commemorate the possibility (sefeiqa deyoma) that sitting in the sukkah would. ... : Halachipedia (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Bedikat%20Chametz) : offers three different answers at footnote 101: :> Bear Hetiev says it's included in Shehecheyanu of Yom :> Tov, Pri Megadim M"Z 431:2 says it's not a mitzvah of :> Simcha, Meiri says there's no Shehecheyanu on Bedika :> which is just done to prevent you from a prohibition. Bi'ur chameitz is a lav hanitoq la'asei, not merely the action required to avoid a lav. We wouldn't be making an "al bi'ur chameitz if it were "just done to prevent you from a prohibition." So I'd love to know where to see this Me'iri inside, because so far, lo zakhisi lehavin. In any case, I would see buying a gun for the sake of keeping Jews safe closer to building a sukkah, as it's a straight asei, then bediqah or baking matzos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your roof. See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying sekhakh.) :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act :> of making it. : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? Again, mitzvos lav lehanos nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) ... : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. : No, he doesn't say that at all... Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at qiddush. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 10:56:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:56:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> References: <56243EE2.6060400@sero.name> <20151019181036.GB20491@aishdas.org> <56253329.40000@sero.name> <715f36066288dd79f482544e6815b9b1@aishdas.org> <562539A3.4020801@sero.name> <20151019212422.GA12973@aishdas.org> <562563F7.6090302@sero.name> <20151020174109.GD10539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5626803C.5090301@sero.name> On 10/20/2015 01:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:43:19PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Sure you would. A sukkah is a major possession... > > Today's reusable prefab, yes. I don't think that's the historical norm. Of course it was. The closer ones house was to a shack, the greater the sukkah was in comparison! > (Certainly not the AhS's typical sukkah, which was opening part of your > roof. If that was done at all in Litta, it was certainly not typical. > See tail of OC 626:1 and se'if 25 where he cautions "besukos > habenyos shelanu" one must make sure the roof is open before laying > sekhakh.) He refers to the "shlack", the rain-roof that they would put over the schach when it rained. > :> In any case, OC 641:1 says that someone who makes a sukkah doesn't > :> make the berakhah then because we are someikh on the one made at > :> Qiddush. But he says it's "al asiyasah". Not having it, but the act > :> of making it. > > : I.e. acquiring it. If you paid someone else to make it, or just bought > : it ready-made, would the shehecheyanu be any less?! > > Where's the indication it's qua acquisition and hana'ah in having a > new keli, rather than qua heksher mitzvah? If so then there would be a shehecheyanu on baking matzos, which we would fold into the shehecheyanu of kiddush, and RAM's question would return in full force. > Again, mitzvos lav lehanos > nitenu -- the primary point of a sukkah isn't for the joy of using it. > (Although a sukkah must be lehseim tzeil, not limited to lesheim mitzvah.) Which tells you right there that a sukkah (as opposed to the mitzvah of sitting in it) *is* leihanos. > : >And yet, the Rama holds that if the person who didn't sit in the > : >sukkah the first night also happened to make a shehachiyanu be'sheas > : >asiyah, then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu at qiddush. > > : No, he doesn't say that at all... > > Correct, I meant: ... then he wouldn't make a shehechiyanu ON IT at > qiddush. Of course not; he's already said shecheyanu on the sukkah, why would he say it again? If you said shecheyanu as soon as you saw a new fruit in the shop, you don't say it again when you eat it. Your chiyuv started then, and you've discharged it, so what is left? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 19:17:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: I wrote: > My question concerned the situation where one is omitting > Asher Ga'alanu because he has neither any kind of wine nor > any kind of chamar medinah, and is saying Kiddush directly > on the matzah. R' Zev Sero responded: > By "omitting" I assume you mean "saying it later". I stand corrected, and I thank you. For some reason, I thought that if one has no kos to say it on, then Asher Gaalanu would be omitted. But Mechaber 483:1 clearly says otherwise. But still, in the case I've given, Kiddush would be said directly on the matzah. Therefore, although you are correct that Asher Ga'alanu is not omitted, but it would be said long after the matzah was eaten, so the question of Shehecheyanu at Kiddush (modeled after Sukkos) is still valid. RZS again: > I see where you've misunderstood. The shehechayanu on the > first night is also on the *sukkah*, not on the mitzvah > of sitting in it. Rather than say shehecheyanu when we > build the sukkah, we wait until the first time we use it > and include it in the shehecheyanu we're saying then anyway. My understanding is that the Shehecheyanu of the first night is on *both* the Sukkah itself and also on the mitzvah of eating in the sukkah. Those two concepts are intertwined so deeply that if one said Shehecheyanu when building his sukkah even a few days before Sukkos, when the holiday had not yet begun, that Shehecheyanu exempts him from saying it again when he does the mitzvah the first time that year. This applies even to a person who did not build any sukkah at all, and is a guest in other people's sukkos for the whole holiday. [For this thread, I plan to use the word "guest" to refer to a person who did not participate in building a sukkah, and does not even have any ownership of any sukkah, not even the shul's sukkah, and eats only in other private sukkos.] If the Shehecheyanu is only on the building of the sukkah and *not* on the mitzvah of eating in it, then a guest would have to delay his Layshev Basukkah to the end of Kiddush even on the first night. But since a guest says Layshev before Shehecheyanu on the first night, it is clear to me that he must be saying Shehecheyanu on the fact that he is now eating in a sukkah for the first time this year. But that logic should apply on the second night as well: Since his Shehecheyanu is *only* on the mitzvah, and the mitzvah did not exist last night, then Shehecheyanu ought to be last on the second night as well. (And in indeed some are noheg like that, but because of Lo Plug, and not because of my reasoning. MB 661:2) Therefore, it seems clear to me, that the Shehecheyanu is both for the mitzvah, and also "for the sukkah" too. I am eager to point out that I have no idea what "for the sukkah" means, except that it does *not* mean "for building the sukkah" and it also does *not* mean "for eating in the sukkah". (I anticipate that some might argue that the halacha was designed for the typical case, and the typical case was that most people did build their own sukkos. I would ask for evidence of that. Somehow, I suspect that private sukkos were not nearly so widespread more than a few decades ago.) After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests. Thus, the Shehecheyanu is problematic if the sukkah's owner/builder and a guest are together, and one is saying Kiddush for the other. But this surprises me, because although I'm aware of differences between kiddush on the first night and second night, I've never before heard of difference between the host and his guest. Has anyone else heard of such a distinction? Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. I am beginning to suspect that RZS might be right: Maybe we do *not* say Shehecheyanu on the mitzvah of eating matza, and also not on the mitzvah of sitting in the sukkah. But if so, then I'm looking for an answer to the question about sukkah guests. And even more than that, what makes Matzah and Sukkah different from Megillah and Shofar? R' Micha Berger wrote: > Shehechiyanu is made in qiddush because it is primarily tied > to the chag. By making a shehechiyanu on the chag, all the > mitzvos of the holiday are covered, but the chehechiyanu is > most directly about the YT. So, we are advised to keep the > mitzvos of the night in mind, but if not, they are covered > indirectly anyway and do not get their own berakhah. According to this reasoning, we should put Layshev Basukkah at the end, even on the first night of Sukkos, *exactly* like the Maamar Mordechai wrote (for when making Kiddush on matza at the Seder). R' Micha Berger wrote: > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees. In his Halachos of Pesach, pp 212-213, he writes: (emphasis his) "We know that *all* foods used on Pesach require supervision to guarantee that they do not contain chometz... Therefore, when the Torah says "you shall guard the matzos," it is not merely requiring *preventative* supervision, it is not only requiring us to prevent the matzah from becoming chometz. In addition to preventative supevision, the Torah is also requiring *positive* supervision. That is, matzos must be supervised during the various stages of the manufacturing process L'Shem Matzas Mitzvah - specifically for the purpose of being used for the mitzvah of eating matzah..." [I've omitted his many sources.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:28:27 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? > > I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have > your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. And someone fulfills pru u'rvu (I assume that's what you are referring to with "second child") and then has children die chv"sh, would be chayuv to have more children. So these are not really once per lifetime. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 20 21:03:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Book case Message-ID: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? There are poskim who say you can put your head down during Tachanun if there are sifrei qodesh in the room. Is this connected? TIA Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:27:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book case In-Reply-To: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> References: <56270E8F.9010604@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151021152721.GA30970@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 06:03:27AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : At my work mincha minyan there is a small bookcase with a few sifrei : qodesh. It has a glass door. Some people are maqpid to open the door : before mincha. Is there a reason for doing this? ... Is it dark in the bookcase? Could it be that with the door closed, the glass in front of darkness reflects a lot? If so, maybe those people are concerned that with the glass door closed, it's too much like davening in front of a mirror. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 08:40:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:40:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> References: <20151015101934.GC11861@aishdas.org> <20151016101830.GC28597@aishdas.org> <4E268C02-3FC6-4E10-8A6A-D89FE7A2870C@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <5627B1EA.6000305@sero.name> On 10/21/2015 12:28 AM, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:39:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: >>> Are there any other chiyim which are only once per lifetime? >> I assume you mean that aren't definitionally so. Like you can only have >> your second child once in a lifetime. Or receive a beris milah. > Tangential to your point, but someone who regenerates his foreskin > (apparently that is possible), would need to have milah again, AIUI. Only midrabanan, because of mar'it ha'ayin. The mitzvah can't be done twice. "Himol yimol afilu meah peamim" refers to tzitzin hame`akvin, in which case the mitzvah was never done in the first place. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 21 10:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza Message-ID: From: Simon Montagu via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>Of course not everybody says sheheheyanu on Atzma`ut, not even everybody who says Hallel, but plenty do, and I heard in the name of Rav Goren in a shiur this week: "You say sheheyanu on a shirt and you don't say it on the medina?" But the logic doesn't work, or rather only worked in 1948: nobody says sheheheyanu on the shirt's anniversary....<< >>>> Saying shehecheyanu on the Medinah -- and even more so, saying shehecheyanu on the anniversary of the medina -- is not analogous to wearing a new shirt. It's more analogous to the day you give the raw material to a tailor to start making you a new shirt, and plus the material has some shatnez along the edges which the tailor is going to have to remove before he can finish making the shirt. You can start memorizing the bracha in anticipation of the day the shirt is finally finished, but don't make the bracha prematurely. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 23 10:34:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:34:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? (I know its bc of the drasha of yad kaiha) But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm and if the arm tephillin represents shibud of our heart to HKBH then arm tephillin s always be on our left arm (even for a lefty) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Oct 25 14:28:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:28:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) so I remain with my question - in terms of ta'amai mitzvos why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? mc >>>>>>> Do "ta'amei hamitzvos" /have/ to be deep and meaningful? Are they allowed to be just practical? The most obvious reason is that it is much easier to do something with your stronger hand than with your weaker hand -- hence you use your stronger hand to put on your tephillin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 03:27:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? Message-ID: in the thread "Mitzvah Kiyumit", R' Micha Berger wrote: > b- A mitzvah asei that carries no bitul asei if you omit it. > Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY > bizman hazeh, etc... and later: > I think the bitul asei is only if one had a karkafta delo > manach tefillin. So, after one's bar mitzvah, there is no > bitul asei in omiting tefillin. I've heard the phrase "karkafta delo manach tefillin" before, but in my admittedly limited experience, it was always in the sense of "Oh, what a shame! That head never got the spiritual benefits of tefillin even once!", which is NOT that same thing as "That head still has a chiyuv of tefillin, in contrast to others where tefillin is merely a kiyum." R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: > R' Saadai Gaon has a teshuvah about whether it's yuhara for > someone who learns all day to put on tefillin, given that > most people around him didn't. > > The Semag (asei #3) mentions the neglect. > > Also, Tosafos (Shabbos 49a, "keElishah"). > > Even as late as the Kol Bo... The BY (EhE 65) quotes the KB > as suggesting that the reason why some chasanim don't put > ashes on their head is because the minhag didn't take hold > or perhaps faded away in communities that don't put on tefillin. I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to Tefillin being a chiyuv only once. They do bemoan the prevalent laxity in tefillin, but that could easily be due to people wearing them only for Shacharis rather than all day. Alternatively, it might be that tefillin was neglected entirely by many people in those communities. The sociologists among us can probably come up with more examples, but I can recall shaatnez being referred to as a "meis mitzvah" because it was so widely ignored, and I can easily imagine that other mitzvos suffered this fate in other times and other communities. Some would say that women's hair covering was in this category for a long time, and I'm wondering if tefillin might have been too. In any case, citations about communities not wearing wearing tefillin is not a proof that the tefillin did not need to be worn on a daily basis. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 07:36:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefillin once per lifetime? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151026143603.GA16375@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:27:49AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Brian Wiener and I asked for more details, and RMB responded: Actually, I responded specifically to Brian, who didn't just ask for clarification. He asked: > [Me:] >> How long must a man wear tefillin? Well, in the ideal it should be >> whenever he is awake and not doing manual labor. In RASHI'S DAY, FEW >> WORE TEFILLIN AT ALL. Today men wear it for davening, but only in order >> to say Shema without looking like liars... > Please elaborate on the highlighted portion. So I took a detour to explain about how in Rashi's day a few tefillin at all. Which explains why: : I have not seen R' Saadia or the Semag, but I did take a quick look at : Tosfos and the BY/KB. Neither one says anything even remotely similar to : Tefillin being a chiyuv only once... More than that, R Saadia (on parashas Bo) questions wearing tefillin as yuharah. Which does get us back to the original question, although I hadn't originally intended to. However, who would ever call it yuhara to fulfill an obligation everyone else was neglecting? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 17:33:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: R' Micha Berger identified a category that Rav Dovid Lishtitz called "mitzvos matirim", which includes shechita, tzitzis, matzah and sukkah after the first night, gittin, and others. He also gave a group of mitzvos which "carries no bitul asei if you omit it. Tzedaqah (in most cases), tefillin, some claim yishuv EY bizman hazeh, etc..." (I've started another thread for discussing whether tefillin really "carries no bitul asei", but for now, for illustrative purposes, let's not quibble over that.) RMB wrote that "for tefillin, like tzedaqah, I was thinking of a case of going beyond the shiur", meaning that until one has done the minimum shiur (a minimum amount of tzedaka, tefillin once, children twice, bris milah once), the mitzvah is chiyuvis, and if one does the mitzvah after that it is kiyumis. (Doing bris milah beyond the shiur is not possible in practice, but I don't think that should exclude it from this category.) It seems to me that these can be divided into two categories: Minimum shiur and change of situation. Having children has a minimum shiur, and once one has reached that shiur, there is no longer any bitul asei though the kiyum aseh remains. Bris milah and pidyon haben involve a change of status (whether physical, metaphysical, or whatever); it's not that one has reached the shiur, but rather the status is changed and it is simply not possible to do the mitzvah again. On the other hand, as R' Daniel M. Israel posted, if one's children die chas v'shalom, he has fallen back into a done-less-than-the-shiur status, and so the chiyuv returns despite the fact that the typical person is "yotzay now, yotzay forever." And status can be reversed too: getting married is once-in-a-lifetime for most people, but the widower and divorcee get the chiyuv again. I'd like to suggest these four distinct categories: A) Mitzvos matirim: There's really no chiyuv at all, unless you want to accomplish a certain goal, in which case you *must* do this. (shechita, tzitzis, kisui hadam, tevila, divorce, maakeh) B) Change of situation: Similar to above, except that it is not optional at all, and then once the goal is accomplished, the results are permanent. (milah, pidyon haben) This sort of mitzvah *can* be done a second time, *if* the situation does get undone somehow. (biur chametz, marriage) But it is never really a mitzvah kiyumis, only a chiyuv that left and returned. C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. I'm sure others will come up with other distinctions and sub-categories, and will come up with ingenious situations to analyze and clarify these issues. Here's one that I touched on above: I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 02:22:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death Message-ID: One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish. Even daughters or other relatives are told after 30 days. (BTW I have seen other explanations of the relevant gemara of Rav and R. Hiya) A story with my mother who was told about the death of her brother (in another country) only after 30 days. Whenever she called she was given an excuse why the brother was not available. My mother was upset for a long time by the loss of sitting shiva which for most people is a great help. Furthermore whenever afterwards she would call another brother and he was not available her immediate reaction was ":what are they hiding from me". As stated not allowing relatives to sit shiva is in most cases not a favor. Of course there are always exceptions. It is rumored that Rav Elyashiv was never told of the death of his daughter, Rbn Kanievsky, because of his fragile health. When the brother Shmuel of RYBS died, RYBS's wife was very sick. Whenever he went to the hospital to visit his wife, during the shiva, he would put on regular clothing so that his wife would not know of the death. Today, not telling is even dangerous since there is a great likelihood that one will find out through phone calls, messaging, social media etc. When a soldier is killed in action the army send a messenger together with a social worker/psychologist to inform the relatives. It has happened several times that before the army personnel arrive the family has already heard through messages. I heard from a rabbi in charge of autopsies that he regulkarly informs all family members because of these concerns. Nevertheless, I have recently experienced several occasions where people send out sms's about a death. I find these extremely dangerous. A close relative or freind needs to be told of a loss in an appropriate manner at the right time and place. My wife recently lost a close freind while we were abroad. Some person took it upon themselve to send an sms about the loss. Fortunately, I knew what had happened and "confiscated" my wife's phone. I dread to think what would have happened had she been sitting at some cafe or other event and read the SMS and would start crying or screaming in public. In conclusion people should think twice about the appropriate way of informing someone about a loss. Most cases sending a text message or postong on facebook is the wrong way -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Oct 26 18:50:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> On 10/26/2015 08:33 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" > category. A single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status > changes to that of a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and > although he is allowed to marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I > suspect it is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. One might argue that it is > in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but I'm not sure. He's not allowed > to have relations with that second woman unless he performs kiddushin > and nisuin, but in this situation, are they actual mitzvos or mere > procedures? In other words: If a man is already married, is it a > mitzvah to marry another? He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas hoda'ah, then you have your answer. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 08:54:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:54:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:20:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I once theorized (and I still suspect) that Birkas Eirusin is indeed a birkas hamitzvah, but a most unusual one: It is a birkas hamitzvah said upon a prohibition. It can do this, because it is said on one of the very few (only?) prohibitions that one can take on voluntarily (short of nezirus and such). Specifically, the issur on sexual relations between husband and wife during the time between kiddushin and nisuin. Please consider the things mentioned in this bracha: - Hashem commanded us about arayos - He forbade an arusa even to her husband - He allows an arusa after chupa I recall that someone once mentioned a Magen Avraham that says something similar, that arayos is so important that Chazal wanted to make a bracha on it, and this was the only place they could find. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in Orach Chayim in Hilchos Brachos. Anyone remember this? Akiva Millet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 10:12:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 11:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:50:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : He says (or rather has someone say for him) a bracha, asher kideshanu > : bemitzvosav. If that's really a birchas hamitzvah rather than birchas > : hoda'ah, then you have your answer. > > It would be hard to say it's a birkhas hamitzvah, as it refers to a number > of mitzvos: the arayos, eishes ish... and only then it's "vehitir lanu > es hanesuos [lanu?]..." which is said as a heter, not a chiyuv. The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will be lifted." -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FB064.70105@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : The bracha is said when the issur is created, not a year later when it : goes away. It seems to me that it's the only birchas hamitzvah on a : negative. "Thank you Hashem that I now have one more way to serve You : by abstaining from this new issur, though I look forward to when it will : be lifted." Not just "negative" in the colloquial sense, but a lav in the technical sense. This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation and a heter created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. In any case, despite this, the Rambam (Ishus 3:23) discusses the birkhas hamitzvah on qiddushin. Presumably this is the berakhah he is discussing. I just find the Rosh's position (Kesuvos 1:12, discussing 7b) far more comprehensible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 12:52:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 03:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > This is what I was saying earlier about making matzos. Even though > ushmartem es hamatzos involves a number of mandatory activities, it's > a lav. I know of no birkhos hamitzvah on lavin. Except this one. > But also... the berakhah mentions arayos, an issur created through > eirusin that has little to do with the chasan's situation What do you mean by that? It's a brand-new issur that affects him from now until the wedding, in "a yor mit a mitvoch". > and a heter > created through nissuin. I do not know how such a "group photo" could > qualify as a birkhas haimtzvah. I don't see where you're seeing a group photo. This is one mitzvah, the issur on arusos. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 13:02:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it does remove one objection against it.] Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:32:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it : does remove one objection against it.] See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. But anyway the beraisa says that birkhas hamitzvos do not have a separate chasimah. (See bottom of Berakhos 46a) And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? As I said, the Rosh makes more sense to me, but I can't deny the Rambam exists. I just don't understand what he does here. It would be a berakhah on a lav, with a chasimah, with a mei'ein hachasimah that doesn't fit the iqar point (birkhas ha'eirusin mentioning a heter that starts at chupah), being made by someone other than the mechayav even though he can equally say it himself... A very very unique birkhas hamitzvah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:42:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:42:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027214217.GG6484@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on doing it as a : mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], having children; I think that : matzah and sukkah might be in this category on the first night after one : has eaten his kezayis, but I'm not sure.) : : D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than sleeping and : seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional korbanos in this category, : but I'm not knowledgable enough to be sure. This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). Qorban nedavah would have to be "truly voluntary". Nezirus. Most of nedarim, shevu'os, et al. ... : I'd like to put marriage (for men) in the "change of situation" category. A : single man has a chiyuv to get married. When his status changes to that of : a married man, he no longer has the chiyuv, and although he is allowed to : marry another, it is not a chiyuv, and I suspect it is not even a mitzvah : kiyumis. One might argue that it is in the "mitzvos matirim" category, but : I'm not sure. He's not allowed to have relations with that second woman : unless he performs kiddushin and nisuin, but in this situation, are they : actual mitzvos or mere procedures? In other words: If a man is already : married, is it a mitzvah to marry another? A matir doesn't have to be for a mitzvah. Eg someone shechting meat for a weekday meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:46:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 05:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:02:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller wrote: > : In case it wasn't clear from my previous post, it is immediately after > : birkas erusin that the newly married couple begins observing their issur > : against relations with each other. I would think that this qualifies for > : "oveir la'asiyasan". [This doesn't prove it to be a birkas hamitzva, but it > : does remove one objection against it.] > > See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in > as a lav, but the Raavad objects and says it's an issur asei. Progress! > BUT, said issur does not begin with eirusin, and therefore (as I wrote > earlier based on deduction) not specific to the chasan -- it would > include haba al penuyah. "Al techaleil es bitekha leznosah." Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. > I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, > then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it begins now, and will end at the chuppah. These aren't three random clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when it will end. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 14:57:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:57:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> References: <562ED869.9080501@sero.name> <20151027155456.GB29033@aishdas.org> <562FB064.70105@sero.name> <20151027194319.GC6484@aishdas.org> <562FD5F7.7090403@sero.name> <20151027213229.GE6484@aishdas.org> <562FF0A9.4090404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151027215751.GH6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >See Seifer haMitzvos, lav #355. The Rambam counts bi'ah before nisu'in : >as a lav... : Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought it was a : separate issur (miderabanan)... Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the groom starting at eirusin. : >I am still wondering why the three clauses. If it's on the issur, : >then "vehitir lanu..." isn't me'ein hachasimah. : : It is me'ein hachasima. It delineates the extent of the issur: it : begins now, and will end at the chuppah... No reason to bring up the end of the mitzvah. Do we give a little pshetl in hilkhos tzitzis before putting them on? The berakhah is on the issur, not when it ends -- it's not mei'ein hashasimah. And we have yet to find the Rambam saying there is a special issur that starts at eirusin. : These aren't three random : clauses. It starts with the general command on all arayos, focuses : on the specific ervah that has come into existence now, and says when : it will end. It's still three clauses, only one of which belongs in the berakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:01:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Announcing Geshem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027220146.GI6484@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Regarding the start of Mashiv Haruach Umorid Hagashem/hageshem on Shmini : Atzeres, we find: "It is assur to mention Geshem until the Shliach Tzibur : announces it." - Mechaber 114:2. ... : Why on earth is this announcement so very important? : : And why is there no announcement at all for Tal Umatar? Well, it does make sense to me that baqashos have a level of personalization that we do not find in shevach. I can insert whatever baqashos I want to add for birkhas hashanim, so things are more fluid there. My question is more your first one -- why must shevach be communal? Not making up your own adjectives for G-d, I understand; but even if I were to switch without everyone in the qehillah doing so yet (because of the lack of announcement), I wouldn't be doing that... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 15:13:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151027221303.GJ6484@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:22:22AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : One of the halachot that has bothered me for a long time is the law not to : tell people about a death except for sons who need to say kaddish... I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. Mar'eh meqomos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 01:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death Message-ID: The Gemara in Masechet Pesachim (3) tells the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, whom the other Rabbis sent to check on Rav Kahana, who had taken ill. Rabbi Yehoshua went and learned that Rav Kahana had passed away. Rather than informing his colleagues of the death of the great sage, Rabbi Yehoshua rent his garments and turned the tear to the other side, where it would not be visible, so as to conceal the news. After the other Rabbis learned that Rav Kahana had passed away, Rabbi Yehoshua explained to them that he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Oct 27 18:15:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I suggested distinguishing: > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis. (tzedaka [see YD 249:2], > having children; I think that matzah and sukkah might be in > this category on the first night after one has eaten his > kezayis, but I'm not sure.) > > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than > sleeping and seudas keva. I imagine there are some optional > korbanos in this category, but I'm not knowledgable enough > to be sure. R' Micha Berger wrote: > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional kiyum. This is demonstrable in several ways: - On the first night, kezayis is the shiur, but for the rest, kebeytza-plus is halachically significant. - On the first night rain is arguably not a petur, but for the rest it definitely is a petur. - Most significantly: If (for any reason) one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night - and he therefore has not yet had this supposed "minimum shiur" - that has absolutely no bearing on the sort of chiyuv/kiyum that would apply the rest of Sukkos. (It *would* affect the Shehecheyanu, but it would not affect the mitzvah of Sukkah.) That's why I put it in (D). On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: > And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass those who are unable to do so. R' Zev Sero wrote: > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought > it was a separate issur (miderabanan). Because she's *not* > a penuya; on the contrary, to everyone but the chatan she's > even worse than an eshes ish, an issur skilah rather than > chenek. Min hatorah I would think that even according to > the Rambam there is no issur with her husband. It being > derabanan would also fit in with there being a bracha for it. Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the > groom starting at eirusin. It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the kiddushin. By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: > In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says > the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' And even though this issur > is mid'rabanan, one needs to say a bracha on it just like > we say a bracha on Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah which > are mid'rabanan...." RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas Hamitzvah. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:16:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:16:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > C) Shiur: A certain minimum is required, but one can keep on : > doing it as a mitzvah kiyumis... : > D) Truly voluntary: Doing things in the sukkah other than : > sleeping and seudas keva... : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > This example of sukkah may be a case of living in it more : > than a minimum shiur, and thus belong in (C) not (D). : : To my understanding, the mitzvah of the first night, and that of the rest : of Sukkos, are two totally distinct mitzvos. It is NOT the case that the : first night is the minimum shiur, and the rest of Sukkos is an additional : kiyum... I spoke of living in the sukkah for things "other than sleeping and a seuda keva" (to quote your (C)) during the rest of the YT being beyond the shiur of ke'ein taduru, rather than being truly voluntary. The Gra would even have you make a berakhah on sitting in the sukkah for it. : On the possibility of Erusin being a Birkas Hamitzvah, RMB asked: :> And why isn't the husband saying it for himself? : Simple: Because he is saying it in public, and we don't want to embarrass : those who are unable to do so. You mean, like we do for "harei at"? Or birkhos haTorah when receiving an aliyah? You could have the chasan repeat after the mesader qiddushin; we do presume in other contexts that Jews know how to do that much. : R' Zev Sero wrote: : > Is the issur of haba al arusato mishum penuyah?! I thought : > it was a separate issur (miderabanan)... : Almost exactly what I thought! But RMB challenged: : > Again, see the lav in ShM. He says it's an issur up to : > chupah, and he counts it, so we know he is talking deOraisa. : > Meaning, your take would be an issur chal al issur for the : > groom starting at eirusin. : It would not be "issur chal al issur" if there's no d'Oraisa after the : kiddushin. It Couldn't be a separate derabbanan either, as they can't make an issur chal al issur either. : By the way, seven years ago, I posted in Avodah 25:294: :> In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the perush Etz Yosef says :> the following on the words "v'asar lanu es haarusos": :> "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a :> gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an :> arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a :> bracha... : RMB is having trouble seeing how this would fit into the Rambam. Maybe he : is correct, and it is only Rashi who would say that Birkas Erusin is Birkas : Hamitzvah. I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. Re my question about who makes the berakhah: The Ritva uses it as proof that it's not a birkhas hamitzvah, but closer to Qiddush. But he therefore calls for changing the minhag to make the berakhah after qiddushin, just as Qiddush is said after Shabbos / YT started. So, I don't think we hold like the Ritva anyway. WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 07:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151028143357.GA32431@aishdas.org> I just wrote: : I already posted that the Rambam (Ishus 3:23 "kederekh shemevarkhim al : kol hamitzvos") says it's a birkhas hamitzvah; the Rosh (Kesuvos 1:12, : on 7b) says it is a birkhas hashevach. The Ben Ish Hai (Shoferim shana 1, no. 10-11) considers it a birkhas hanehenin. All three categories covered. But we were trying to make sense of the Rambam in particular. In any case... given how unique birkhas eirusin is all in all, it has no power as a ra'ayah. After all, this began as a tangent on a discussion of whether there are berakhos on mitzvos qiyumos which in turn was a tangent on a discussion of the mitzvos themselves. Which may mean it pays to give some focus the mention of leisheiv basukkah on sitting in a sukkah for things other than sleep or a meal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 06:15:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] informing on a death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: he did not notify them of the sad news because of the verse, "Motzi Diba Kesil Hu" ? "One who bears bad tidings is a fool." He therefore kept the news to himself, rather than divulging the information to his colleagues. ------------------------------------------------ I?ve always wondered about this ? if the person would want to know (e.g. pray for one who is ill), is treating him like a cheftzah shel mitzvah the correct thing? kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 08:45:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> On 10/27/2015 9:15 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > "Rashi explains that it is d'rabanan that they made a > gezera on yichud with an unmarried woman, and even an > arusah was not allowed until she enters the chupah with a > bracha, as it says, 'A kallah without a bracha is assur > to her husband like a nidah.' In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. [Email #2.] On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad. If you did the mitzvah without the bracha you were yotzei. It doesn't mean that lechatchila you are allowed to do it without a bracha. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 10:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is /after/ nisu'in, not before.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 09:23:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> References: <5630EEC6.5040102@sero.name> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2015 11:50 AM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > In this context it needs pointing out that the bracha referred to is > *not* birchas erusin but the 7 brachos of nisu'in. Yes, and that's what demonstrates that this new issur applies from the erusin until those 7 brachos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Oct 28 13:48:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:48:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit In-Reply-To: <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> References: <20151028141627.GA10783@aishdas.org> <5630EDA8.5080404@sero.name> <20151028170633.GD13442@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <563134A2.9000906@sero.name> On 10/28/2015 01:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:45:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 10/28/2015 10:16 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> WRT birkhos hamitzvah, we say berakhos einum me'aqvos. So, the idea that > :> he needs the berakhah as part of the matir is not a function of it being > :> a birkhas hamitzah; and in fact argues that Rashi holds it is NOT one. > > : Brachos einan me`akvos is bediavad... > > Yes, so if this were a birkhas hamitzvah, relations would be mutar > bedi'eved if the berakhah were omitted. That makes no sense. This is the bracha on kiddushin, which is *not* matir relations, but quite the contrary. And indeed, if it is omitted the kiddushin are still tofsin, exactly as one would expect. > This isn't my point, it's the Ritva's. Reference, please. I can't understand how the Ritva could make such a point. > (Yes, who then says the iqar berakhah being discussed in Kesuvos is > /after/ nisu'in, not before.) We say them before the yichud, which is our version of chuppah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:46:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist Message-ID: Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist (ie between the time he is no longer a danger and the time he is in police custody). Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based on teshuvot of Achiezer. Anyone interested in the mekorot can email me (eliturkel at gmail.com) He further stressed the shiur was NOT halacha le-maaseh. He brought a story that when he was in the army in Jenin there were rumors that the Palestinians were preparing mass graves to prove that there was a mass extermination by Israeli. His unit got orders from the highest level to go in and check these "graves" to prevent a PR disaster. However, the next day was shabbat. Rav Algazi called haRav Mordechai Eliyahu whether it was permitted to violate shabbat to investigate nonJewish deaths. The answer he received was that if the international media was waiting to hear from the Palestinians then it was a MITZVA to go in on shabbat and prevent bad publicity on Israel. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 06:56:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563376FA.201@starways.net> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... > Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and > not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based > on teshuvot of Achiezer. I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Oct 30 04:53:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] informing on death In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Oct 30, 2015 06:32:25 am Message-ID: <14462240200.A698Ad.76802@m5.chicago.il.us> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a > daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which > might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me. > Mar'eh meqomos? I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know, the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way, which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden. Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah 402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not. There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in Yoreh De`ah 402:12. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 01:11:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Oct 31 11:13:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (menucha via Avodah) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist In-Reply-To: <563376FA.201@starways.net> References: <563376FA.201@starways.net> Message-ID: <563504C8.6010405@inter.net.il> Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > >> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist... >> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and >> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based >> on teshuvot of Achiezer. > > > I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I > would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent. Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the context of milchama. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 10:40:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with > logical/emotional arguments? Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 1 14:02:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham : launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional : arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he : could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How : does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds to us. Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer. But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it. Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys" of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions, or at least not ones they hadn't already given me. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 01:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... > RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. ... > But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily > part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on > Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out > of it. I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with >> logical/emotional arguments? > Yes, he did. > How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla? > I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits > perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah, > utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah. Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an omniscient perfect god? The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake. How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or, that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 03:00:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah... :> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading. : ... :> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily :> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on :> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out :> of it. : I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments : to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade : Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out of it." The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah is never about pursuasion or begging. It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 05:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far. The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity. We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it. Lisa On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 06:18:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <56376568.1070506@starways.net> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion. ... > The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah > is never about pursuasion or begging. > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit? If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked? However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to be see save Sdom? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. > Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem... > And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson > for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good > for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't > even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could > have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...." It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 09:51:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> Message-ID: <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing > the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to > an omniscient perfect god? Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. > in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind. "Vayinachem Hashem". If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of them "first" and another "next". -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 2 10:59:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <56376568.1070506@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151102185919.GA31066@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his : > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself. : : In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is : unfair... And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him. : ... When Moshe : Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people : because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is : attempting to persuade.... Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. Etc... When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you give a one line summary of its problems? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 04:02:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:41:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <56365CA7.6030005@sero.name> <5637A284.3090601@sero.name> Message-ID: <5638C7B5.3010401@sero.name> On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > > So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to conform to the map then the fault is with the map. For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them. It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem, most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour- blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum, so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words, that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the lens. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 3 06:50:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151101220206.GA20632@aishdas.org> <20151102110031.GC12309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151103145006.GD18217@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel : leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without : formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and : therefore, while useful, they are not necessary... I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf. I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point. It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version. The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters, the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book doesn't "get" the whole middos thing. Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus, rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original format helps me that way. On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to : focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those descriubing the function. Or are you thinking that Avraham was repeating the mistake of Bavel, and actually waging war with G-d? The "war" isn't a real war, the defense arrourney isn't a real attourney. But -- as you note -- he sure sounded that way. Obviously G-d does what's best, and not respond to whining human beings to do anything but. And obviously he doesn't change His "Mind"; it's a metaphor for doing something different now that He let us do our little free-will thing. I don't find your problems so compelling, but since you clearly do, let me quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes (The Sign of the Four, ch. 6) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 08:39:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:39:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: > I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical > arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try > to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game. Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 4 22:22:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:22:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] on gettting married Message-ID: The Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 1) paskens that one must marry by the age of 20. If he passes the age of 20 the bet bin forces him to get married so that he will fulfill pru u-revu (ie he would get whipped a few times as an encouragement to get married - better than speed dating) Ramah adds that today we don't force on this or other things of getting married. Mordecai answers because the gemara at the end of Chezkat Habatim says that after the churban it is best not to have children and the nation should disappear. We allow marriage only because it is better that they be shogeg and not mezid. The Mordecai concludes that true we don't prevent marriage but certainly we should not force someone to get married. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:09:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:44:05AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham : 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he : includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush... : I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring : Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? I found the Mekhilta. R' Eliezer haModa'i says that we learned that mon did not fall on Shabbos. But how o we know it didn't fall on YT, that it didn't fall on YK? ".... [uvayom hashevi'i] Shabbos lo yihyeh bo..." (Shemos 16:26, darshened as a ribui) The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the se'urah on erev YK. (The kingdom of Lotharingia was named after Eperor Lothair I or II. That name evolved into the name of the French region of Lorrain. So I think that's where he is talking about.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:18:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehecheyanu on Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151105211827.GB29125@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:17:43PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : After writing the above, I found that Beur Halacha 641 "L'atzmo" does seem : to hold that the Shehecheyanu is specifically on *building* the sukkah. He : says that the Shehecheyanu "on the sukkah" applies only to one who built : his *own* sukkah, and NOT to guests... So, assuming this is so (since it's what I've assumed all along)... : Here's another distinction between when we do or do not say Shehecheyanu: : Mishne Brura 651:2 says that the sukkah gets a Shehecheyanu because it is : made anew each year, in contrast to a shofar or megilla which lasts for : many years, and also in contrast to Chanuka neros which are made each year : but are not obviously so. I've always wondered why this logic wouldn't : allow us to say Shehecheyanu when baking or preparing our Seder Matzos. : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > To my mind, this is where the assymetry resides. The pasuq : > says "ushemartem es hamatzos", using the shoresh of : > "shemirah" would mean it's a lav. So baking matzos doesn't : > get a birkhas hamitzvah or a shehechiyanu, ... : : If you're saying that "ushemartem es hamatzos" is purely negative, then Rav : Shimon Eider explicitly disagrees... Not negative in the sense of action vs inaction. If it were, then ushemartem es hamatzos wouldn't subsume the baking, and the symmetry to building a sukkah would be complete. It's a lav because the pasuq uses the shoresh /sh-m-r/, but that doesn't rule out including necessary actions. And just as your quote from R' Eider shows that it includes pro-actively guarding the matzos, it also includes the baking. So the heksher mitzvah isn't "just" a hekhsher mitzvah, it's also a lav. Unlike building a sukkah. Which would imply that we don't just omit a shehechiyanu on a lav due to a lack of motive, there is an actual reason not to, one that trumps including heksher mitzvah in the shehechiyanu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 13:32:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm In-Reply-To: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> References: <12a301d10db9$0d293410$277b9c30$@com> Message-ID: <20151105213256.GC29125@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:34:20PM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : But in terms of ta'amai mitzvos.. : assuming the head tephillin represents shibud of our head/brain to HKBH, : and the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin sbe on our stronger arm Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using your stronger arm, rather than on it. This would fit the source derahsha, that the tefillin should be wrapped by the same hand that is commanded to do the next mitzvah in the chumash -- mezuzah. To strengthen this idea a bit -- because I realize it needs strengthening -- the mitzvah is only the tying, the tightening of the first loop. We could take the optionality of the further wrapping in two opposite directions: 1- We wrap around our arm so as to further express the ta'am hamitzvah, which would lead to the position RMC assumes. Or 2- The wrapping is for an entirely different reason. Lehalakhah, we are just putting a box on the arm, which need not feel like subjugating it. Deprecating the significance this element because it's optional. The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore should be the strong hand. Thus showing shibud, but in the same way as nearly other mitzvah; being done with the stronger hand is not uniquely tefillin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 5 17:05:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur In-Reply-To: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> References: <20151105210917.GA29125@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I asked: : During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a : double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the : children eat? R' Micha Berger answered with a Mechilta that darshens Shmos 16:26, saying that the mon did *not* fall on Yom Kippur. (I don't have a Mechilta, but the Torah Temima on that pasuk very conveniently quotes it, adds some explanation, and also gives a reference to Tosafos. Those who are interested can look at the Tosfos on Beitzah 2b, V'hayah, which offers differing ways to darshen that pasuk.) At first, I thought this might leave my second question unanswered. But RMB added: > The Maharam miRutenburg (shu"t hachadshos #170) says that based on > this, the people of Lotir had a minhag to use mishneh lekhem for the > se'udah on erev YK. It is hard for me to imagine using lechem mishne merely to commemorate the lack of mon on YK. It must be that the people of Lotir had a tradition that there *was* a double portion of mon on *Erev* Yom Kippur, presumably for the children. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 10:52:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? Message-ID: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> R' Alec Goldstein, You wrote in your opinion piece in The Jewish Press : > But, some will claim, perhaps Maimonides and Rabbi Feinstein are > wrong; perhaps Judaism views the fetus as something other than a human > person. The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See . R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu deretzicah, not actual retzichah. And perhapos in that family we could put talmid reports that R SZ Aeurbach held it was a bitul asei of hatzalah, or perhaps a violation of lo saamod -- or perhaps even theft (although this third possibility isn't similar to the other not-quite-retzichah but still killing-like answers). R' Aharon Lichtenstein -- vechai bahem. RAL also discusses the Ran's shittah (Chullin 48a) that the issur is derabbanan, a taqanah based on the ethics of retzichah. The Chavos Ya'ir (siman 31, based on Nidda 13a) says it's hashchasas zera. Related would be saying that abortion is a violation of piryah verivyah (see Yevamos 63b), or destroying tzelem E-lokim (Zohar, Shemos 3a, which is the portion in Choq, p' Shemos, Mon). A third family of approaches is based on chavalah of the mother, see Shemos 21:22. (Eg Tzafnas Pa'neiach 1:59) R' Uzziel (Mishpetei Uziel vol 3 CM 46) suggests hashavas aveidah (!). I personally do not understand the Tz"P or MU, since neither relate abortion to the basic question of life, and yet it's included on the category of retzichah for benei noach. But in any case, you see how rare it is among acharonim to say that abortion is actual retzichah, ie that a fetus is a human. The Rambam himself is generally understood to hold that abortion is NOT retzichah. This is why Rotzeiach 1:9 can distinguish between before crowning and after as to whether we call the fetus or new-born whose existence and birth threatens the mothers life a rotzeiach. (CC: Avodah email list) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 6 12:17:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The Igeros Moshe (CM 2:69.b) is in the minority on this position. > Now, after, I bothered writing the below, I see that Chana Luntz > translated the survey of sources from the Tzitz Eliezer vol 9 51:3. See > . > R' Unterman holds (Noam VI [1963], 1-11) that abortion is abazraihu ... Hi Rav Berger, Thank you for reading and writing. I am not a Posek and I make no claims to be. The article was not primarily intended as a halakhic piece, and indeed quoting the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe occupied only a small part of the article; and I linked to two different articles with differing opinions about whether abortion is biblical or rabbinic. Personally I read that Rambam as suggesting abortion is a form of murder, because the concept of *rodef* only applies to people, and the Rambam applies it the case of the fetus. I am aware not everybody reads the Rambam that way, but again, I am no Posek. What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, either under the biblical *issur* or *chavalah* (or something similar), or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The *halakhah *dictates that we must honor the status of the fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." In other words, the article was more societal rather than halakhic. Thank you for sending the additional sources and I will look them over after Shabbos. All the best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 03:37:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 11:37:02 -0000 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> R' Alex Goldstein writes: > What are the implications of having Rav Moshe be in the minority? If > we reject Rav Moshe, we still are forced to admit it's prohibited, > either under the biblical issur or chavalah (or something similar), > or it is prohibited by dint of a rabbinic commandment. > We are rabbinic Jews. Even if abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, we do > not set aside rabbinic legislation unless there is a compelling reason > to do so. The halakhah dictates that we must honor the status of the > fetus as a human or at least as human-like, and that was my main point. Well not so clearly, if you take the view it is the limb of the mother, then it is not regarded as human like, the prohibition is, as you say chavala -- we would not say my leg was human like. Part of the problem is that as an American you are enmeshed in the American debate, and which is framed in terms of pro-choice/pro-life. Here in England the debate has been framed differently (although there is now some seepage over the Atlantic, as there are in other things -- there always a handful of trick or treater's now that appear on one's doorstep on Halloween). In England the debate has traditionally been framed in terms of the welfare of the mother. In order to get an abortion, a woman needs two doctors to sign off that it is in her best interest. That in effect means that abortion is virtually on demand, because for a doctor, it is virtually a no brainer that carrying a pregnancy to full term is not in the medical interest of the mother. I am sure the statistics are much better these days regarding maternal deaths than they used to be -- but the old figures were something like -- have an abortion -- 2% rate of death, carry to full term -- 9% rate of death. If a woman is pregnant and come and asks you for a procedure that involves a 2% rate of death, and not doing it carries the risk of a 9% rate of death, there can be no medical question. Of course, even abortion carries medical risk -- which is why contraception is free on the NHS -- even for women who normally have to pay for medication (eg are not below 18, on benefits, etc). The medical risk of pregnancy for a woman is regarded as too great unless the woman chooses to put herself into a high medical risk category. And that is true even though deaths from childbirth have come down -- they have only come down because of the active intervention of the medical system. (And, as you might suspect,women who do not look after themselves in pregnancy have a greater risk of complications at birth -- and women who do not want the baby are less likely to look after themselves in pregnancy, so indeed the medical risks are higher for somebody who is asking for an abortion). If you want some idea of what the statistics of maternal death would be without medical intervention -- find out how many of your women friends who have had children have had non elective caesareans (almost certain maternal death) or heavy bleeding after giving birth (very high risk of maternal death) -- even if no blood transfusion was needed. If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure for its sake. At the risk of quoting myself, I would emphasize that my main point was: "Are the pro-choicers, even if they reject science and religion, willing to grant that the fetus has any protected status at all, or will they continue to strip the fetus of any shred of human dignity it possesses? A society is judged, after all, by how it regards it weakest members." Now the best way to ask this question is to frame it in the theoretical (but we may not be that far off this). When the medical system develops the ability to produce test tube babies all the way to term, without needing a human womb, what sort of status do or should those foetuses have? Should they have any protective status as life? At this point of course there is no more question of interference with any rights of the mother -- so what are these entities? Is it manslaughter if you were to switch off the machine growing them? At what point? Are they required to be given a halachic burial? At what point? Are they metamei b'ohel (ie can a cohen visit if there might be some dead ones in the building)? Do we have to keep the male cohanic ones separate due to risk that the other ones might die? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:56:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 08:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP: What is Life? In-Reply-To: <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> References: <20151106185213.GA25651@aishdas.org> <002501d11a19$ca09cec0$5e1d6c40$@org.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz wrote: ... > If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical > justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks > of childbirth becomes almost automatic. As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see > how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a > situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic > mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women > are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not > demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- > darchei darchei noam). It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a > life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and > possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure > for its sake. ... Hi Chana, Thanks for the email. I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized, either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture, which does not view abortion as a moral evil. I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion; unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel* yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth. A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's not human.) I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing: make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't get a vote, so to speak. I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical and societal than halakhic. You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of "justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself opposes abortion.) As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for me. That's territory for a Posek. Best, Alec From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 05:12:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] neutralized terrorist Message-ID: There was an article by R Reem Hachohen (RY Othniel) on whether one has to try and first main a terrorist (matzil be-echad me-evorov). In the end of the article he mentions the question of a neutralized terrorist. He also assume sthat mainly the laws of war apply. However he the notes that the Netziv (Haamek Sheelah) followed by R Ariel pasken that a war is conducted by a government and not individuals and as such the halacha would follow the government directives -------------------------- For the original question of matzil be-echad me-evorov he brings 3 considerations 1) Rodef - Mishne leMelech holds that matzil be-echad me-evorov applies only to a 3rd party but not to the person being pursued. For the persued the halacha is "Ha-ba le-horgecha hashkem le-horgo" 2) Ba Be-machteret different from rodef in that killing the rodef is a mitzva while ba Be-macheteret is "reshut", also Shvut Yaakov claims that there is no halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov even for a third party. However Chavot Yair disagrees. 3) Dinei Milchama - Knesset ha-gedola states that during war all of the enemy has a din of rodef however the halacha of matzil be-echad me-evorov doesnt apply since eveyone is considered directly affected and not a third party As stated before within dinei michama government rules are binding -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 13:03:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] JP What is life Message-ID: <563fb8ab.82628c0a.20a93.1710@mx.google.com> Even if one does extend the category of "life" to a fetus (which is a big if), then I would ask two obvious questions: If there are more vulnerable members of American society who are clearly alive, would it not be more beneficial to devoting efforts to helping them? Is the best way to limit abortion to make it illegal or to cut down on the number of abortions by those most likely to abort their children (single white women and married African American women)? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 12:58:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: M Cohen asked: : why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm? ... : the arm tephillin represents shibud of our strength to HKBH : then arm tephillin should be on our stronger arm R' Micha Berger suggested: > Perhaps the point is to wrap your tefillin using > your stronger arm, rather than on it. which I understand as: We are accustomed to connecting the tefillin with the (passive, weaker) arm on which they are placed, but perhaps the point is to look at the (active, stronger) arm which is doing the tying and wrapping. This answers a related question that has bothered me for quite some time: Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) The logic always bothered me: If it is bad to use a once-soiled arm for handling the tefillin for the few seconds of tying and wrapping, isn't it even worse for a once-soiled arm to support the tefillin for the duration of shacharis or longer? RMB's post speaks to both the original question and mine too: > The hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem > and therefore should be the strong hand And so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 08:18:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tefillah Message-ID: <> I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 8 18:41:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:41:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast Message-ID: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Rav Yosef reportedly tried to limit the broadcast of his regular Torah class. Anyone wanting to know more can look it up because I don't want to get involved in that particular episode. My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a third? Meaning, does his (halachic) copy right extend that far or once he is speaking in public and broadcasting the talk, any halachic rights he may have towards ownership are lost? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 01:00:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical arguments?" What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 02:42:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:42:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make > logical arguments?" > > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and > others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer > to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 03:09:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect > God? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:06:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:06:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: >> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing >> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to >> an omniscient perfect god? > Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode > of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective. So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash on the other hand? [Email #2] On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising. ... > When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you > give a one line summary of its problems? WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way. Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your explanation. [Email #3] Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end. 1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha" means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c. tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3 (war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when tefilla is mentioned separately? 2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not simply airing his grievances. [Email #4] On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Allan Engel wrote: > Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > On 9 November 2015 at 09:00, Marty Bluke wrote: >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However, the underlying question of tefilla still remains. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > "Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make >> logical arguments?" >> What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect >> God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and >> others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer >> to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that? > Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet > ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God then what is it for? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:30:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet >> ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ? > I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God > then what is it for? The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the Jewish people. Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku to live longer which G-d answered. I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Eli -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 05:45:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:45:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something > done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the > Jewish people. > Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku > to live longer which G-d answered. > I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they > appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:01:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for : a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person : better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does : not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach... It doesn't? Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence? The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'" Moshe alone achieved. As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST: > I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those > descriubing the function. When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance. However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others. The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different part of the dialectic. R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST: :> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential. :> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it :> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>> : I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with G-d even us the sun set on prophecy. He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch. So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say. But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works, and the other is an experience of what it's like. R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT: : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed a huge distinction. "Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the world is different in kind than our participation in the development of halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 194 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151109174031.GI10359@aishdas.org> In addition to that link to RNH's JP article, R/Dr Noam Stadlan pointed me over the last 48 hours to R/Prof Sperber "On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions" (for the pro) http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1393 RHS "Women Rabbis?" http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Schachter.pdf I had complained that a change in how halakhah is lived should be argued in the pages of shu"t, not by proclamation or petition. Rabbis using the tools of rhetoric and declaration will just convince the other that you're more concerned with politics and policy than actual Torah substance. (Even if that substance might be the halachic boundaries of politics and policy, that has to be clear.) R/Dr NS did me the favor of digging up counterxamples. There is also http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Broyde.pdf (While one of the authors was since caught inventing sources and other intellectual dishonesty on other papers, I presume R' Shlomo Brody did something to confirm the paper's contents, including the other's contribution before letting his name appear on it.) Still, I think that the characterization of the dialog is sadly still up (down?) to my original description. We're having a pulmus, not a viquach. >From from the first time in our history; but it always carries a huge cost. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 09:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 9 November 2015 at 17:01, Micha Berger wrote: > : Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay" > At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed > a huge distinction. > .... Our participation in the events of the > world is different in kind than our participation in the development > of halakhah. In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said 'Do what you think best'. The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe were trying to do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 10:21:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: <20151109170131.GE10359@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151109182119.GC1022@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:29:04PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote: : > .... Our participation in the events of the : > world is different in kind than our participation in the development : > of halakhah. : : In that case, Hashem would (kaveyochol) have thrown his hands up and said : 'Do what you think best'. : : The word 'Nitzchuni' translates as (or at the very least implies) being : bested or convinced by argument, which is precisely what Avraham and Moshe : were trying to do. Bested is pretty close to "do what you think is best". The Sanhedrin wins, because it was HQBH who said "lo bashamayim hi", not because they convinced Him of anything. That wasn't the way the "argument" was won. Also, "nitzchuni" has another equally literal usage, from "netzach", eternal, as in "Netzach Yisrael". Therefore, the Maharitz Chajes and RYBS renders Hashem's line as "You have made Me Eternal!" This refers to the fact that the Torah needs to be a process rather than a set of rigid G-d-given conclusions to survive all the changes society will encounter through the millennia. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 08:55:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership Message-ID: [Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2... micha] http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati Helfgot -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 11:51:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our weaker arm Message-ID: In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote: > so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand < Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might dirty it. > Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim 3:10) < I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a . Also, BH and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around the [middle] finger). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 9 13:06:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56410AF1.40403@sero.name> On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for > a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person > better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does > not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying > philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise > fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla > could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly. As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of *not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go. So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe. He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them. I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon. But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow", although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical. (That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years", which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial" decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time because that's the way our brains are built to see everything. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 02:07:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael. He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for the Jewish People. Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem. If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings with the outside world. Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:24:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash : : More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a : chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or : on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a : check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem . : : Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community, : centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for : embezzlement... In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog . The relevant quote: Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes. Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. [Block-quote in the original] If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting people instead of a wise and understanding one. [Ad kan nested quote] Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational explanation for the commandments in Horeb. IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a black-letter lav. (And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 07:39:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by > Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be > holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting. > > [Block-quote in the original] > > If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened > people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah -- > he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah. > > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations, and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms. To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to these "enlightened" people's principles. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 13:08:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> References: <20151110100747.8C6EA1814C8@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151110152409.GB23452@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151110210809.792DB183435@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote: > I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is > forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because > of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms > of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy > nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted > to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say: > "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if > they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms, > they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"... But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example, what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely throughout the world. There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all gentile circles. This is not the case today. See http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/ YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 10:09:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 14:10:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. Shui Haber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 15:07:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564278C2.7090104@sero.name> On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html > > is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov? The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag. Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out before the call. > is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul > [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily? I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov. It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting for the next yomtov. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 16:39:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111003926.GA9707@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote: : http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha] : : A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati : Helfgot Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah. He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010 against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real. Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote for this reason. But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman. As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah deOraisa. Unlike women. This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the original. Not touched by RNH. Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.) I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H. Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is his letter to the RCA . He permits pesaq, but ONLY on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 10 19:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> I would ask the question like this: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own particular nusach? 2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are (unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing. On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his > (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 07:07:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah Message-ID: <20151111150747.303D4182F21@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from the article The Ish Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995 issue. One may read the entire article at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf Revision, For the Sake of Truth His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was such that he was willing to revise long held views. even if that meant a reassessment of publicly stated positions. His views on the relevance of Torah im Derech Eretz are a case in point With the rise of Nazism in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced that Torah im Derech Eretz as expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was no longer relevant, not as an educational program and certainly not as a Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the Nazi beast (even before World Warm. the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany, and the total failure of the ideals of enlightened humanism and Western culture to change the essential nature of gentile society led him to conclude that the only path for the Torah- observant German Jew was to return to the 'Torah Only? approach, and to shun Western culture and the world at large as much as possible. Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as sha'ah, a temporary measure for a temporary situation. In 1934, he aired these views in a slim volume entitled Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming into Judaism), which caused a sensation in German Orthodoxy. But after coming to America, he concluded that the realities of the ghetto and the shtetl where one could spend all one's life in the local beis hamidrash, with its total dissociation from the rest of society, was a way of life that had also been consumed in the flames of the Holocaust. The realities of life in the United States and other Western countries. where the Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles and could not live totally apart from around him, were not essentially different from the situation in the Western Europe of Rabbi Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led him to the inevitable conclusion that he had never meant Torah im Derech Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter. Although Rav Hirsch did not insist that it was for everyone, he certainly did not see it as time bound. Rabbi Schwab then publicly retracted his earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as the sole way of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always viewed the situation in Eretz Yisroel as essentially unique, but that is beyond the purview of this article.) To that end he published in 1966 a booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments and counter-arguments for both positions, with the conclusion, as the title indicates, that both, in their proper time and place, are legitimate ways of life for the Torah Jew in Western society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:29:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own : particular nusach? Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach altogether before this question even gets off the ground. There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.) But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or "haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu, "vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc... Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe. And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending a minyan where /their/ nusach differs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 08:45:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Restricting a broadcast In-Reply-To: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> References: <564007CF.5060308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151111164556.GC8985@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on : two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a : third? ... We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to relate halahah to copyright. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11 Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the consequent thread): 1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law. 2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer, except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law, it would also include all of halachic baalus. 3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings, hasagas gevul arguments might hold. 4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim 7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't see applicability. Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions. I'll post it next. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:03:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation of the Dor Revi'i]: :> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is :> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because :> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms :> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy :> nation; : Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special? : If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the : Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages.. I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in my mind: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. RZS's question would be equally applicable. But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" that "contradicts the Torah." Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 09:54:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> References: <5642B93F.3070101@zahav.net.il> <20151111162900.GB8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The AhS prefers the Sfrard > Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i" > continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh > (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't suggest that anybody else should adopt it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 10:37:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem In-Reply-To: <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> References: <56420FC8.8030504@sero.name> <20151111170311.GD8985@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56438AF0.1020900@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral >>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment Where did the SuM get this idea? Secular society never saw anything of the sort. All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting an author's creation. And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment. > But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express > a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral" > that "contradicts the Torah." Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah. > Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not > mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has > its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it > *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether. Of course it does. The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with slavery, and current Western opinion does. Thus it claims that the Torah's system of values is ch"v defective. It's the same problem as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus not allowed. > Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the > opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"? No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody considered them "enlightened"). It also wasn't on any kind of moral grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than having two, just more peaceful. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:02:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening Message-ID: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up that way. I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D) The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak. Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a similar manner to the Chazan in time) The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists). When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein) I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 14:34:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] You can't just change accepted practice Message-ID: <20151111223411.GD12591@aishdas.org> I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for. 1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah". The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah. 2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53. The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do, lo michzei keuhara.) Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on what was nahug. But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 12:39:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151111203957.65DE318097F@nexus.stevens.edu> At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote: >There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks >about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz, >since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening >Ashkenaz and switched. I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 17:12:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation Message-ID: from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem": > And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? > His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. > But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" > to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.) I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu". And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem". (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:02:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151112040254.GB12090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for : research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled : heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think, : though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better. Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas) than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem". : Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect : this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own... Idiomatic expression. : (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening : where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it : actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't : think either could be twisted into "the Reputation"..... "Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no? Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13). And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation, not the proper noun we call Him by. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 11 20:09:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in > davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In > one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means > "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the > Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say, > Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to > complete The Name".) Actually in both places it means The Name. He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that only he could say. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 04:56:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: I referred to: > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > so he'd say, Please G-d!" But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > only he could say. Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common Adnus replacement? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 10:08:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah Message-ID: In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: > Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? < I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends". Sometimes, as when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or "Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale change in nusach". P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer Torah* into the conversation? All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 12 08:17:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <5644BBAE.6000304@sero.name> On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I referred to: > > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And > > so he'd say, Please G-d!" > > But R' Zev Sero explained it better: > > > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was > > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that > > only he could say. > > Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem. Because we are referring to what he actually said. He said "Please [insert Name here] ... please, by [insert Name here] ...". The point of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim. > Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any > other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the > Shem Adnus? But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus. It's literally a reference to the Shem Hameforash. Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh A-Y echad USHEMO echad". Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz SHEM HAGADOL". > If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more > appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk > "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in the pasuk itself. Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition of extending this interpolation with a long tune. Why not finish the pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying it? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 02:25:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 08:55:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56461610.8060904@sero.name> On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) > Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength > > convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances How is that less than complete truth? > Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his nature of chessed. The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it. > Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share > Running away from Lavan without telling him Again, where is the lack of truth in either case? Yaacov dealt with more than complete honesty with Lavan. It was Lavan who kept changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with the last one. Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he can to profit by whatever deal he has? And why should Yaacov have told Lavan that he was escaping? That would have been very stupid of him. > Note that any one instance can be always explained however there > appears a pattern. Where's the pattern? The only incident of deceit was with the brachos, and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard. > One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. > > However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav > he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as > meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain > meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to > explain away Yaakov's words Where's the falsehood? He said he would get there eventually, and so he will, eventually. Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?! -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 13 11:20:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: <20151113191954.A8014180CB6@nexus.stevens.edu> This essay by RSRH at Lessons From Jacob and Esau is well worth a read by all parents. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 03:41:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:41:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 15 06:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names Message-ID: Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe outside of the Avot. Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak does appear, trvia question 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach One name appears for 16 people - which name? Some others appeaer 5,6,7,8,9,10 times Even with these repetitions the percentage is much less than what appears with modern names. Most names in Tanach appear only for one person (over 50%). Given equal total numbers in modern society it is unlikely to find a name that appears only once. In Britain in the 1800s 20% of the boys were named John and 25% of the girls Mary 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:33:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ethics independent of the Torah (was Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F759.5000707@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 1:41 PM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: > "Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not > mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah." > > It is not so simple. Please see R' Aharon Lichtensteins essay Does > Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah, > http://www.scribd.com/doc/16263866/Does-Judaism-Recognize-an-Ethic-Independent-of-Halakhah-by-Rav-Aharon-Lichtenstein#scribd > where he quotes many sources that can be interpreted that way. I'm kind of surprised that RAL didn't cite Radak on Breishit 20:6. He says "And even though he wasn't commanded about it specifically, reason directs him, and the One who gave reason to humankind, it is as if He has commanded us to do as reason directs, because reason is the emissary of God, and it warns a person against all bad things, and the violence one does to his fellow is contrary to reason and destroys the order of the world and its habitation." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 07:37:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:37:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5649F833.6070703@starways.net> On 11/15/2015 4:10 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Some thoughts from the book of Snerb on "Vayetze" > > There is no one in Tanach names Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov or Moshe > outside of the Avot. > Even in the Gemara Avraham Yaakov, Moshe don't appear but Yitzchak > does appear, Akiva is the Aramaic version of Yaakov. Lisa > trvia question > > 1) Give names that appear at least twice in Tanach Miriam, Jonathan, Azariah, Tamar, Calev, Lemech, and I'm sure a ton more. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 08:49:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564A0905.1040209@sero.name> On 11/15/2015 09:10 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) Give names of people in Tanach named after some ancestor I think Nachor was the first person to be named after his zeide. David's daughter Tamar was descended from Yehuda's wife Tamar. Reuel seems to have been the name of both Yitro and his father. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 13:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Name and Reputation In-Reply-To: References: <564410FB.8060409@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151116214533.GA5313@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:56:51AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other : cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus? Related.... RYBS has you parse the quote as "Ana, basheim kaper na... -- Please, through the medium of the name, give kaparah to the sinners..." (Similarly, "ki bayom hazeh" is taken as a reference to "itzumo shel yom mechaper".) So, maybe here too he is somehow referring to the sheim Hashem?! A second hint of what may be a more solid possibility, is that the chazan shortly after uses sheim Adnus is a stand-in for the sheim hameforash. Perhaps if Adnus is being promoted in this paragraph, we use Hashem for sheim Havayah. (Assuming that Havayah isn't itself the sheim hameforash, as per the Rambam.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 16 14:31:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151116223155.GA25708@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:54PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked: :> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above, :> and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? : I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying, : via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no. Regardless, : my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".... Actually, I was thinking of a different "it depends"... Apparently we allow small changes (Yisgadeil veYisqadeish, for example) because they make more sense to the people making the change. But reluctant to make sweeping changes -- although they too have happened on rare occasion. So, it seems to me there is a non-boolean scale here. The greater the change, the greater the necessary motivation, but it is : when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper : understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately : follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a : seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order : of *p'suqei d'zimra*... And yet, PdZ as a whole isn't me'aqeiv. The Rambam only requires one kapitl (Tehillah leDavid from Ashrei, #145), Rashi only requires two kapitalakh (Halelukah, Halelu es H' Min Hashamayim, #148; and Halelukah, Halelu Keil beQodsho, #150). And that's to be yotzei a non-chiyuv! So how significant is the order? And is the word count significant if the mispalel in question had a greater teshuqah to some other idea? My question is broadening into one about nusach and nomianism. Given that one can be yotzei with either nusach alternative in question, it seems to be all about minhagim WRT minhag vs kavanah, which is part of the iqar mitzvah. Contrary to implying the answer is that no change is possible, I am wondering why any change (again, assuming some minima are met) would be worse than paying in how passionately one davens. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 17 14:26:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:26:01 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Ben PeKuAh - now a reality Message-ID: more information regarding my long cherished dream - now a reality - www.bpmeats.com and various answers from R Chaim Kanievsky on the documents page Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 01:26:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:26:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: <> RYBS was very much against changing the nusach (eg nahem on tisha ba-av) nevertheless he changed the nusach hatefila in many cases where he felt that another version was more correct (eg he used the sefard version of the avodah on YK). RMF also seems to note that kavanah is more important than the nusach of the shul. As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. I am curious if any chasid actually listened to this psak which was opposed by all chasidic poskim. In general I have trouble with piskei halacha for someone else's kehilla (as ROY liked to do). In our shul we learn a short halacha yomit each morning from a book. Yesterday I gave it and the sefer mentioned that EVERYONE says "Elokai - Netzor etc. " right after "Asher Yatzar" I pointed out that in a short survey of siddurim in out shul there where many different variants of where it is said. In many shuls wiht a given nusach there is more than one kind of siddur and the chazzan chooses which one he uses. Thus, even given a nusach there are variants within that nuscah (OTOH there are shuls that insist on a single variant as given by a specific siddur). Personally I feel that there is too much emphasis on minor variants as opposed to kavannah, not talking etc. A few years ago there was a big deal made about "geshem" vs "gashen". That seems to have died away -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:16:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach : Ashkenaz... "Should" or "could"? Which has the second effect of thereby only being a pesaq for those who choose to utilize the permission and thus not really being someone else's kehillah. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications. See http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19056&st=&pgnum=241> Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 07:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564C9B2C.9000508@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach Ashkenaz. No, he doesn't. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 08:46:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Refusing the amud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151118164642.GH10883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote: : In my shul if someone refuses to be chazan until asked 3 times he will : never be chazzan and most probably many davenings will never get any chazan The heter I was told for not following the SA (OC 53:16, AhS s' 15) is that it became bigger issurim to (1) make difficulties for the gabbaim and to (2) delay until it's a tirkha detzibura. The SA (echoed by the AhS) says one must "lesareiv me'at", which he defines as mesareiv at the first request, gretting ready at the second, and standing up at the third. The AhS invokes serarah, saying that when an adam gadol asks one may not refuse unless it's a davar sheyeish bazeh serarus, in which saw "yesarei me'at". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 12:56:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:56:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein Message-ID: I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur. I let members give their opinion cases: 1) in WWII Turing et al broke the German code. In order to keep the break a secret it was necessary to not always use the available information. Churchill decided that keeping "breaking the code" secret was the highest priority. This meant that people were killed in not using the information. It is estimated that a million lives was saved by breaking the code and Eisenhower said that breaking the enigma code was one of the important points in the allied victory 2) A teerorist stabs someone seriously. A paramedic has the choice of helping the seriously wounded person or else running after the terrorist who is trying to kill many more 3) A spy deep in enemy territory sees a wounded Jew. If he helps the victim he gives away his identity and all the work put into his identity and the information he has been gathering 4) In a battle the enemy attacks one side. Sending troops to help the soldiers defend themselves leaves the flank open and could jeopardize the entire "regiment" psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: As noted RMF paskens that all chasidim should revert back to Nusach >: Ashkenaz... > "Should" or "could"? .. See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he > mean by resha'i"? > BTW, from within that kehillah, the Noam Elimelekh writes in a letter > that switching from Ashkenaz to Sfard was (at the time of the letter: > is) only for someone who fits a long list of qualifications.... I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even for the "average" chassid. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:47:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151118214733.GB4988@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to : nusach ashkenaz. As I wrote, that depends how you understand his use of "reshai" rather than "tzarikh or "chayav". : Without starting a new topic many chassidic poskim disagreed with RMF even : for the "average" chassid. Yes, but the Noam Avimelekh, alive when the switch happened, would have only justified the switch to people who actually gain by having the opportunity to have those qabbailstic thoughts. Which gets back to the original topic -- when does kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your Creator override inherited nusach? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:08:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: <20151118161625.GF10883@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <564CF6F8.3060202@sero.name> On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to > nusach ashkenaz. This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 13:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Barry Kornblau via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:51:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote: > I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur... ... > psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" , > Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future > problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that > is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no > matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from those. Barry Kornblau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 14:28:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and "safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the consequences at the expense of a single life (as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case) Again any opinions? -- Eli Turkel ______________________________________________ two general comments: 1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha. KOL TUV Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 18 18:27:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] R Zilberstein In-Reply-To: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> References: <711E8FAE-BB8C-4723-944A-67CCBCAB773F@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20151119022704.GB21492@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems : underdeveloped in halacha. As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that. As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do, let Hashem deal with how that impacts others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 03:02:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:02:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"? R' Eli Turkel answered: > I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST > halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see where RMF takes it. RMB again: > Which gets back to the original topic -- when does > kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your > Creator override inherited nusach? Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB might be, "Do it VERY carefully." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 07:16:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564DE7DC.508@sero.name> On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST >> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz. > Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" > (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, > and I don't see where RMF takes it. More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`"). > Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the > bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change > of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif > gore'a". He doesn't concede this at all. On the contrary, he disputes it, *because* there are cases when adding is subtracting. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 12:41:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] National Punishment In-Reply-To: <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> References: <564D1BE8.7020701@gmail.com> <564D1C91.7060409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151119204148.GA10333@aishdas.org> We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust, and last Shabbos's attacks. Among the issues raised: > Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a > better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of > your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because > it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a > better Oveid Hashem? And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself? Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection, many of those hurt were more connected to the victims. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT that last issue: : I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and : rationale of collective punishment of nations: : Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as : a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things : happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members : relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim, : someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city. : Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt : on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically : harmed. : I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being : punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at : one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation : experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or : another, or why or why not one individual and not another, : experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect : judgement coordinates everything appropriately. : So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of : sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately : object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you : assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was : guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to : say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that : pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is : why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by : saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of : its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no : part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that : individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice : decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole. : But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he : nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a : national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what : happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the : actions of that nation, qua nation. : The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national : behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The : next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound : harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the : actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly : criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic : events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal : actions. I was with you up to the last paragraph. After all... The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta... uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says "Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem, ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."? (The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two one-time events.) Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it. And... It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim. Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event, but each experiences it for a different reason. This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains, Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not the same even from everyone else's eyes. But... The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin beli-da'as?" (38:2) So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer such explanations? My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios, and not get a single answer. As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that, only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means, run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav" doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that the routine was broken and one is fired up to change. Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals, hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch _______________________________________________ Areivim mailing list Areivim at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 19 21:02:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem to such an extent that their words are really His. Do we have a similar belief? The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in those terms. Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands (in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it. And if we look at the reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not everything in it is true. Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't appear to be true. So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true, not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science textbook, if such a thing exists. Remember that at the time TShBP was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire, and thus there was no need to "canonise" it. Perhaps if the mishna had already existed it too might have been "canonised". Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 05:55:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach... http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html) It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there, some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish people across time. - Mordechai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 09:10:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <564F540D.8090206@sero.name> On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote: > Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for > the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that "metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh". But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh, or are they using it in a different and higher sense? 1) Was Koheles written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because they didn't exist when the gezeira was made? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 20 10:59:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau Message-ID: In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote: > This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau* is well worth a read by all parents. < I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 08:01:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:01:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> References: <564EA965.6060105@sero.name> Message-ID: <56509550.2080804@starways.net> On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem. The nevi'im > had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their > own words. But what are kesuvim? When the Sanhedrin decided that a > sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it? > Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say? > Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the > mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim. Is there any source for that? I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh? I mean, I understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that. As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" under which Tanach was written is a continuum. That is, Torah, Nevua and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's Mind/Will/Intent. And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with which the books of Ketuvim were written. The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:33:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <20151122005119.IHNY28496.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 16:40:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Shavua tov, Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:29:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: <56512886.1040907@sero.name> On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back > -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to > if he had used the word "pen". Your premise is incorrect. No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5. There is no other word that the servant could have used. "Pen" means "lest", not "maybe". It would not have worked in that sentence at all. The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav. 27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 21 18:19:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 21:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai In-Reply-To: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> References: <20151122005119.SBTT12313.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote: > Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used > (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- > as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he > had used the word "pen". > But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father > will discover me... > (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable > that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. [I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes, but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 01:06:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 04:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha Message-ID: <20151122090711.DBF01180C84@nexus.stevens.edu> YUTORAH: Ten Minute Halacha -- Recent Shiurim: Ten Minute Halacha - The Role of Kabalah in Halacha https://overcast.fm/+Dt7g1TF0s YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 20:05:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai Message-ID: <104e57.2ccfd94c.4383ea98@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:40:17 -0500 From: Sholom Simon via Avodah Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he had used the word "pen". But in Toldos (29:12) [ed note: that should be 27:12] Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father will discover me. I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent). Surely somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no? (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught). Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom >>>> The answer to your question is in Rashi on Toldos 24:39 where Eliezer is telling Besuel and Lavan the whole story and quotes himself as having said, "Ulai lo selech ha'isha acharai." The word "ulai" here is written without the vov and can therefore be read "eilai" -- "to me." Maybe if the woman doesn't want to come with me (he said to Avraham) or you guys don't want to send her with me (he said unconsciously, hopefully, to Besuel and Lavan), then Avraham will be forced to turn to me -- eilai -- and take my daughter for his son. In contrast, when Yakov says "ulai yemusheini avi" -- "Perhaps my father will feel me" -- the word ulai is spelled the normal way, with the vov. And therefore there is no drasha to be made on the word. PS After writing the above, I saw that RGD quoted someone who did make a drasha on that word. It was similar to RSS's speculation that Yakov had an unconscious desire to get caught. It sounds far-fetched to me but if true, is yet another answer to RET's question (dated Nov 13 with the subject line "truth") about Yakov's being called "the epitome of truth -- titen emes le'Yakov" -- and yet seemingly having trouble in precisely that area. IOW he really, really, really did not want to deceive his father even for a short time! His mother forced his hand in service of the greater truth -- viz, that he rightfully deserved the bracha, as Yitzchak came to acknowledge. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 18:36:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile Message-ID: I have to admit that reading Rav Moshe's teshuva a few more times has shown me another way of understanding it, very different from what I posted previously. R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I understood RMF as paskening that all chassidim MUST halachically > return to nusach ashkenaz. R' Zev Sero wrote: > This is just not true. Whoever told you such a thing must not > have seen the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it. A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe writes: "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view as well. But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:00:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach HaTefila Message-ID: <1043a6.13f0c4.4383db3d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 >>I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to >>Nusach Ashkenaz, one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard. YL >>>> This is a perennial on Avodah. The basic rule is that Litvishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Sfard to Ashkenaz but not the other way around, while chassidishe poskim say you can switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sfard but not the other way. The former say that Nusach Ashkenaz was everyone's original nusach, that's why you can switch back to what your forebears did. The latter say Nusach Sfard is a higher, better, more holy nusach, that's why you can switch from what your forebears did to the new improved model. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 19:32:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 From: Eli Turkel via Avodah Yaakov is the epitome of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from Yaakov's strength [1] convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances [2] Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better) [3] Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share [4] Running away from Lavan without telling him Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a pattern. [5] One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time. [6] However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesn't seem to be the plain meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words Looking for help -- Eli Turkel >>>> [1] Esav wasn't starving, he was just impatient and a baal taivah. The Chumash testifies "vayivez es habechorah" -- he readily gave the bechorah away for a pot of chulent because he held it in contempt. Later when he cries to his father "Vayakveni zeh pa'amayim" he thinks he is voicing an additional grievance to his father, but to his father this revelation -- that he had previously sold the bechorah to Yakov! -- comes as a great relief, informing Yitzchak that the brachos were truly Yakov's by right. It also speaks well of Yakov that he had never told Yitzchak about the sale of the birthright -- had never humiliated Esav in his father's eyes. (BTW there is SO MUCH that Yitzchak is literally "in the dark" about! He doesn't know what Rivka was told when she was pregnant with the twins, he doesn't know that Esav sold the bechorah, he doesn't know that Esav is really evil and totally unsuited to the bracha he has in mind for him, and he doesn't know that Esav plans to kill Yakov after his father dies -- Rivka only tells Yitzchak, "I can't stand our daughters-in-law, we have to send Yakov away to get a better wife." She never says, "He has to leave town because your beloved son Esav plans to kill him.") [2] Rashi's splitting Yakov's words only makes the point that even when a tzaddik is /forced/ to deceive, he /still/ is careful not to let an actual falsehood escape his lips. And the deception that Yakov (and Rivka) carried out was a temporary one, to be uncovered within the hour -- its purpose was to prove to Yitzchak how easily he could be fooled! Rivka had always warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. When he realized how easily he could be fooled -- which was the whole point of the deception -- he realized that Rivka had been right all along and quickly reaffirmed the bracha mida'as saying "Gam baruch yiheyeh." He could have withdrawn the bracha and said, "I had Esav in mind" but he did not do that. (See Hirsch commentary on this whole story.) [3] It was /Lavan/ who kept trying to steal from Yakov! You've got it backwards! Hashem simply did not allow Lavan's schemes to achieve their intended result! Yakov worked very hard for Lavan and made Lavan a wealthy man, and nevertheless Lavan kept trying to trick Yakov out of what was rightfully his, changing the terms of his employment over and over. [4] Yakov explained to Lavan why he sneaked off with his family and property -- very eloquently. He was dealing with a trickster who would have stolen his wives and children from him! [5] Yakov was always a tzaddik, he did not "improve over time"! But I will concede that even though his (brief) deception of his father was 100% justified, nevertheless Hashem judges tzaddikim kechut hasa'arah and that is why He allowed Lavan to succeed in pulling a similar fast one over him, changing the younger sister for the older one. [6] "We will be together in the future -- beyemei haMoshiach" is not a lie, it's a foreshadowing of the whole course of human history! One thing you do see in the pattern of his life is that Yakov, an ish tam, a straight and honest person, was forced to deal with liars, thieves, tricksters and murderers his whole life. For a tzaddik to be put in such a position is a terrible hardship. That is why he later tells Paroh that his life has been one trouble after another. But it's also another foreshadowing of Jewish history -- ma'aseh avos siman lebanim -- that we Jews, who are the most upright and holy people in the world, will always be at the mercy of tricksters and killers and will always have to use our smarts (with Siyata Dishmaya of course!) to overcome our wily enemies. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:27:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5652BFD3.6060702@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 09:36 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > A third possibility is that someone DID read the teshuva inside, but > interprets it differently than how RZS interprets it. It is impossible to interpret it differently. If someone is reading it as you suggest then they have misread it. > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, No, he did not, in fact he explicitly wrote the opposite. > and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think > it's okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. It can't be difficult, since that is what he explicitly writes. > And if RET wants to understand that all such people MUST refrain from > repeating the errors of the past, then I can't say he's wrong. He is wrong, because he is contradicting the explicit words of the very teshuvah he is citing for that proposition. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:57:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:57:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd > like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe > writes: > > (For those like me who don't have the physical book, the teshuva is on http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&pgnum=196) > "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have > started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two > or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the > contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the > Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." > > On the one hand, Rav Moshe did use the word "resha'i - allowed", and did > not actually say that the questioner was required to switch to Ashkenaz. > That's the view I wrote of in my last post, and it seems to be RZS's view > as well. > > But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of > doing something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's > okay for yet another generation to continue on that same path. > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. He certainly doesn't come over as a big fan of the new nusah, but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a reason that justified the change". OTOH, I believe nobody has quoted the last sentence of the teshuva, which for practical purposes in many cases does have the effect of *requiring* a change: "When praying with a tzibbur in a beit knesset, for things said out loud it's forbidden to differ from the tzibbur, and for things said in silence it's also good to pray in the nusah of the tzibbur". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 22 23:36:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 02:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> References: <104941.4cc07ec4.4383e2bc@aol.com> Message-ID: <5652C1FD.9000506@sero.name> On 11/22/2015 10:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always > warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her. He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 02:27:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:27:30 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age Message-ID: <77F4CDF6-E9A2-445F-B696-8F555F3FC9DF@balb.in> > Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and > 20 years and 7 years). But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax > is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 > years). I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at > all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah. > > Thoughts anyone? > > ? Sholom Look carefully. Meas Shonoh is used. See Sefer Hazikaron on Pirush Rashi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 04:07:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:07:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? Message-ID: RHS wrote the following ( http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_beshalach.html): "...Towards the end of *parshas B'shalach* Hashem used three expressions when instructing Moshe *Rabbeinu* to record the story of Amalek into the *chumash*: *zos*, *zikoron*, and *ba'sefer*. The *gemoroh* (*Megillah* 7a) comments that this references the division of *Torah shebichsav* into the three sections of Torah, *neviim,* and *kesuvim...*Regarding distinction between *neviim* and *kesuvim*, the following comment is attributed to Reb Chaim Soloveitchik: both *neviim* and *kesuvim* were composed with *ruach hakodesh*, but whereas the *kesuvim* were initially intended to be written down, and only then to be read, and therefore are referred as *kesuvim* (writings), the books of the *neviim* were initially intended to serve as prophecies to be delivered orally and only later to be written down and therefore are referred to as *neviim* based on the biblical expression, "*niv sifosayim *- the produce of the lips", i.e. the spoken word." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 05:02:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:02:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] punishing children for the sins of fathers Message-ID: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/11/rav-kook-on-nidui-and-cherem/?utm_source=Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=9e311bfd0f-Weekly_Digest_Correction&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bfc0f3f090-9e311bfd0f-267646509 If *Taz*? idea applies even when the purpose is to foster better Torah observance, punishing someone who did not sin would be an example, since the Torah says ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, fathers should not be killed for the sins of sons, and vice verse. If so, rabbis cannot do it even as an extraordinary measure to foster Torah observance. That seems to R. Kook the implication of *Sanhedrin* 44a?s questioning how Yehoshua could have killed the children of Achan. The answer was that they weren?t killed (which is not the simple reading of the verse), they were forced to watch, to learn a lesson. If Yehoshua was allowed to kill the children as an object lesson to others, the Gemara?s question makes no sense. It seems clear, he says, that the verse prohibits killing (or punishing) sons for the sins of the father, even if it would help make an important point. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:10:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: http://www.vosizneias.com/221589/2015/11/22/bnei-brak-strong-criticism-after-rabbinate-annuls-womans-conversion-after-30-years/ question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 15:24:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151123232425.GA10487@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 03:10:57PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : question---in standard charedi conversions , are there periodic recalls of : the convert to the beis din in order to decide if their current level of : practice is insufficient, warranting bitul lemafrea? There is no bitul lemfreia. Yisrael, af al pi shechatah, Yisrael hu. The only way you can invalidate a conversion is if you could show that it (1) pro forma was not done al pi halakhah or more relevantly, (2) that the geir never was meqabel/es ol mitzvos. (However you might define that.) The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah. ("To join the people who follow halakhah" is my latest attempt to include even the loosest definitions of qabbalas ol mitzvos.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RnCL to leverage the research she put into QOM for prior discussions. -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 17:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5653B722.9010809@sero.name> On 11/23/2015 02:57 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > This interpretation seems to be begging the question. You're assuming > that RMF held that changing nusah is "wrong", but he doesn't say that. Actually he does. He says that he doesn't understand what heter the chassidim had to change their nusach, and he cites and dismisses two such alleged heterim. However, you are correct that despite this > but in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph he says explicitly > "We don't object to those who made changes, for they surely had a > reason that justified the change". In other words although he can't think of a heter he assumes they must have had one, and also a good reason, and therefore he won't second-guess them. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 23 21:37:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah >>he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always >> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed him politely he grew suspicious. So he knew exactly what sort of son he was dealing with, but he thought the power of the brachos would bring Esav back. Rivka knew otherwise. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>>> He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora -- in fact, despised the bechora. When you see the brachos he gave Yakov (what he had originally intended to give Esav) you see that they are all blessings for material wealth. He knew that Esav was not the scholarly type but he thought his two sons would have a Yisachar-Zevulun relationship, that Esav would be wealthy and would support his brother, the scholar, who would spend his whole life learning. Rivka knew that Yakov needed material wealth as well as intellectual and spiritual blessings, because she knew that Esav would not support Yakov and Yakov would be destitute if he had to depend on Esav. She knew that Esav was systematically deceiving his father as to his true character. She tried to tell Yitzchak but he didn't believe her. Yes, Yitzchak knew his sons had different personalities but Rivka understood her sons far more deeply than Yitzchak did. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 07:52:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:52:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently have our preconceived notions and then put them into the avot rather than the reverse. Below is an example I recently saw (from the har etzion site) We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 08:48:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565494C6.6010602@sero.name> On 11/24/2015 10:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and > the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them. > It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's > legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. And in the meantime Yaacov is just lying there waiting, which is a bizayon. To Chushim that was not acceptable, so he took direct action and the funeral was able to proceed. > There is no way to decide between these alternatives There certainly is. The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:35:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:35:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home Message-ID: if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav out of the way, but 2 years? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:44:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : if yaakov spent 2 yr in canaan before seeing his father , what's the : logic of that? i think ones natural inclination would be to visit : relatives the day one arrives to the airport. i understand getting eisav : out of the way, but 2 years? According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big blatant one. BTW, Sukkos and Beis-El are nowhere near Be'er Sheva. Not sure if they're far enogh to serve as an excuse, but... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 14:52:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:52:53 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > According to the Mahrasha (Megillah 16b) and Sifsei Chakhamim, he > was punished for it. So, it was in error. Yoseif was missing and > presumed dead for 22 years as punishment for the amount of those 22 years > Yaaqov was wrongly away from Yitzchaq and Rivqa. 2 of them are these. > So its a matter of explaining why it was a small error rather than a big > blatant one. i understand punishment hepresumably shuld have wanted to show off his family to his mom.... and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 15:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 : than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. To start a different train of thought: Rivqa said "veyashavta imo yamim achadim" (27:44) The time he speant working for Lavan for Rachel were "vayihyu be'einav keyamim achadim" (29:20) But he mourned for Yoseif "yamim rabbim" (37:34) Something there about the point of the punishment. The days of labor only fit his mother's description in his own perception, not his mother's. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Nov 24 19:28:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:28:41 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 02:52:53PM -0800, saul newman wrote: >: and any ways, i have less problem with the punishment for the last 8 >: than the 1st 14, wherein he was following the command of his father.... > The Sefas Emes asks that question. He compares Yaaqov's exile to an > ir miqlat -- the sin was criminal negligence, not willfull sinning. He > should have treated Eisav differently, and he wouldn't have ended up in > a situation where he couldn't honor his parents. meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 02:43:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:43:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] yaakov comes home In-Reply-To: References: <20151124224423.GA20237@aishdas.org> <20151124233046.GA32369@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151125104318.GC26077@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:28:41PM -0800, saul newman wrote: : meaning, he should have refused to his mom's ruse to steal the bracha, : or should have answered 'hakol kol' by saying 'it's me, yaakov' ? : : or meaning he should have given the soup with no strings attatched? I took the Sefas Emes as talkig more like we do about Dinah avoiding Esav... About things he could have done other than those two to bring him back. Take a look inside. I also found http://heichalhanegina.blogspot.com/2006/12/kibud-av-part-two.html The Modzitzer Rebbe points to the last 2 years. His ability not to rush home immediately shows that Yaaqov motive even during the 20 years was not just to do what his father said and come right back. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 08:35:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 07:07:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:07:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:03:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:03:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert before marrying Ahav. In point of fact, we don't have any indication that Ahav was a bad guy before Izevel married him and influenced him. I'd actually turn the argument around, and say that from the fact that neither Tanach nor Chazal suggest that Ahav's children weren't Jewish, it's clear that Izevel *did* convert. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:16:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't : convert before marrying Ahav... RET mentioned Shelomo's wives. The Rambam, Hil' Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-16 discusses both them and Shimshon's. Levav David on 14,15,16 explains, see Looking for more peirushim on the Rambam turned up this, which discusses RET's original question , with meqoros each way. Too involved to quickly summarize. I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there wasn't any either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 10:29:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: On 11/25/2015 6:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: > Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert > before marrying Ahav... Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. What bet din? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:34:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> Message-ID: <56560D5B.4040409@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 8:29 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > > Given jezebel history highly unlikely even with Solomons wives we > have discussions besides any conversion would be a farce what bet din > What's your basis for saying that? You know nothing about Jezebel except stuff that happened 15 years or so after Ahab became king. Tanakh isn't a history book. It contains history, but not complete history by any stretch of the imagination. So when it comes to "Jezebel's history", that's mostly a closed book. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:56:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:56:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: "The story doesn't say, but I bet something came out during the discussion not about the mother's shemiras Shabbos today, but her shemiras Shabbos the weeks after the conversion. That she never accepted to join the people who follow halakhah." R' Micha raises an important factual question, the answer to which is critical in understanding what happened. But if I were a betting man, I'd take the bet. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:15:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565616D7.8000005@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how a chumrah > especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could use > grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative psak some O > rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape juice was no different > than orange juice and certainly not to be used for kiddush. As a result O > Jews used wine for kiddush during the prohibition but drank grape juice > without any hechsher. If anyone did so, it was out of amhoratzus, not a result of this psak. > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that one can > use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). Most important > they all hold that grape juice is wine for the prohibition of stam yeinam Everyone always held that it's subject to stam yeinam. There has never been a psak from anyone otherwise. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 11:29:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:29:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1b773e.48772d70.43876626@aol.com> From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> R' Eli Turkel wrote: We all know the aggadah of the burial of Yaakov, the fight with Esav and finally the deaf Chushin the son of Dan kills Esav explanation #1 - The sons of Jacob didn't know how to handle the challenge of Esav and argues with him but Esav was more clever. Chushin who was deaf understood the "real" Esav and understood the resultant Chilul Hashem. So he acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. It could have been solved by friendly negotiations by showing Jacob's legal right to Maarat HaMachpela. Instead there are "deaf" people who rush to action before all peaceful ways are followed. Rikvah who fought to prevent the fight between Yaakov and Esav now loses both of them the same day. There is no way to decide between these alternatives sometimes the questions are stronger than the answers-- Eli Turkel >>>>> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. Your explanation #1 is close to the classic explanation. While the sons of Yakov were arguing with Esav about who has the rights to Me'aras Hamachpela, Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. (However I do not understand the last sentence of that paragraph -- you wrote, Chushim "acts without considering the reactions to his act to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov." I don't know if "he acts without considering...." is an implied criticism of Chushim, and I don't understand "to claim the rights of the descendants of Yaakov" at all.) Your explanation #2 has a totally modern "shmeck." I'd like to see any Chumash commentator who says anything similar to that. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:13:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:13:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: "> explanation #2 - There was no need for the disagreement between Esav > and the sons of Jacob to involve murder. What murder? Esav was holding up Yaacov's funeral. He had no right to do that, and Yaacov's family had no need to put up with it. Esav of course knew very well that he'd sold the plot, and was therefore in the wrong. He just supposed, correctly, that they would not have thought to bring the contract with them." I had no idea that holding up a funeral was a capital crime. More importantly, though, I think that RET's comment that there is no way to decide between the alternatives can be looked ta somewhat differently. I don't see this as alternatives in the sense that one explanation of the story is correct and one not. Rather, since we're speaking about a aggadah,, not text, whose purpose is to teach lessons and not to tell us what actually happened, the lesson the rabbis are teaching us with this intentionally ambivalent story is that rash action may sometimes be necessary and sometimes precipitous and it's difficult to know at the time which is the case. People taking, or considering taking, such actions, therefore, must always be cognizant of these two possibilities and thus use, as best as they can, considered judgment. Being men and not God, of course, means we won't know which alternative applied to a particular case until, in most cases, it's too late. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:37:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> References: <1e0a15.79496ec1.438551a3@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125203724.GD4564@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:37:39AM -0500, via Avodah wrote: : From: Zev Sero via Avodah :>> he doesn't know that Esav is really evil [...] Rivka had always :>> warned him about Esav "ki tzayid befiv" but he never believed her.[--TK] :> He did believe her, and he knew what Esav was really like. He warned :> Esav not to bring him stolen meat or neveilah, and when Yaacov addressed :> him politely he grew suspicious... : He knew that his sons were different but he did not know that Esav was a : rasha and he certainly did not know that Esav had sold the bechora... Just that he was a ganav, an okhel neveilos and a liar who spoke crassly? Rashi (25:29) says that Avraham died 5 years early to spare him the sight of Esav doing AZ. Is that consistent with saying Yitzchaq missed it? I only want to point out the berakhos Yitzchaq gave out. When he thought he was blessing Esav (27:27), Yitzchaq notes that his son smells like the field which Hashem blessed, vayiten lekha haE-lokim..." All gashmius. When he knew he was blessing Yaaqov (28:2), he invokes Keil Shakkai, as in Avraham's berakhah and explicitly gives him Avraham's berakhah and EY. It would seem that Yitzchaq knew which was the better son. However, he thought that Esav would grow to harness his physical gifts to support his brother. Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:23:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah ....The conclusion of the episode is that Yaacov saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed. What more is needed to show that Chushim was right? -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> I've never heard of this. Where is it written? Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Or at some earlier point in time? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:29:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: > > > From: Toby Katz at < t613k at aol.com> > > > There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier > sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can > speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but > our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:34:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:34:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> On 11/25/2015 10:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? After all, Yerav'am is from Efraim, not Yehudah, and even > the whole throne of the kingdom of Yisrael isn't all that legitimate. > Maybe Chazal never questioned their legitimacy for the throne due to > Izevel's lack of geirus (as the Radaq and Ralbag hold) because there > wasn't any either way. But who says kings can only come from shevet Yehudah? Even the Rambam says that you can have kings from other shevatim. It's just that they're subordinate to the king of Yehudah. Essentially, for the entire duration of the northern kingdom, it was in rebellion. Also, I think we're talking about two different kinds of legitimacy. Being Jewish, and being a legitimate king. And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:48:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : And Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. : Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's : okay. Shaul aside, since he predates Yehudah getting the sheivet, so "lo yasur sheivet miYhudah" wouldn't apply... It could be that HQBH hates bloody fights over succession worse. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. That piece I pointed to had no direct quotes otherwise, but does list a number of maamarei Chazal that would seem to say otherwise. So, the possibility that Izevel was not Jewish has to be supportable, even if you yourself do not find it convincing. (Sidenote: I am getting a chuckle out of discussing whether a queen a queen of Malkhus Yisrael was a baalas beris using an English word whose etymology is more like "member of the people of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah" -- Jew.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:49:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth Message-ID: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> From: Toby Katz <_t613k at aol.com_ (mailto:t613k at aol.com) > In a message dated 11/25/2015, micha at aishdas.org writes: Rivqa was told "ushenei le'umim meimei'ayikh yipareidu", but apparently no one told Yitzchaq. >>>> Yes, I already mentioned that. In the list of things that Yitzchak was in the dark about, I mentioned that Rivka never told him the prophecy about the twins she was carrying. Yitchak was both literally and figuratively blind, certainly blind to the reality of who his son Esav really was. Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals that were hefker, not stolen property, but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy questions about tithing salt and straw. Presumably he feared that Esav might not be clear about the halachos of what exactly constitutes stealing -- just as Lot's shepherds reasoned that they could graze their sheep wherever they wanted to, even on private property, because all of Eretz Yisrael had been promised to Avraham. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 14:46:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> References: <1bdd66.7a68dc73.438778ec@aol.com> Message-ID: <56563A56.2060806@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:49 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yes, Rashi says he told Esav to be sure and bring him hunted animals > that were hefker, not stolen property, And that he shecht them properly, which means he knew very well what Esav normally ate. > but Rashi also says that Esav fooled his father by asking him frummy > questions about tithing salt and straw. He *tried* to fool him. Rashi doesn't say he succeeded. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:06:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565622D9.70500@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder about the question, though. Did Chazal consider any of Malkhei > Yisrael legitimate even if their membership in Benei Yisrael were not > a question? Yes, malchei Yisrael had a din melech. And thus were subject to the prohibition against appointing a foreigner king. On 11/25/2015 01:29 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 20:03 Lisa Liel wrote: >> Just because she was a wicked idolater doesn't mean she didn't convert >> before marrying Ahav... > Given Jezebel's history highly unlikely. Even with Solomon's wives > we have discussions. Besides any conversion would be a farce. Surely she did convert. Ach'av was a shomer mitzvos, and would not have married a shiktze. And she did accept her new country's god -- after all, her sons were not named Achazbaal and Baalram. But she didn't abandon her old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she could be executed, but either she intended to break her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid. > What bet din? Ovadiah was Ach'av's house rabbi, so presumably his beit din. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 13:04:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> References: <1bbe7d.5785cab3.438772d2@aol.com> Message-ID: <5656224A.4060604@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 03:23 PM, T613K at aol.com wrote: > I've never heard of this. Where is it written? In the same place where the rest of the story is written. Sotah 13a. It's the conclusion of the story. > Could you fill in the rest of the story? Yakov saw Esav's blood on > whose feet -- Esav's feet or Yakov's feet? Yaacov's feet. > Yakov saw? Yakov laughed? When -- after he had died?! Yes. Yaacov, after he had been dead for 70 days, and had been embalmed by the Egyptian methods which involved removing his internal organs, opened his eyes, saw Esav's blood on his feet, and laughed, as the pasuk says "The tzadik will rejoice when he sees revenge, and washes his feet in the rasha's blood". On 11/25/2015 02:29 PM, T613K at aol.com via Avodah wrote: > Chushim ran back to Egypt and fetched the original shtar. Naftali ran back to Egypt to fetch the document. Chushim wasn't willing to let his zeide just lie around for a few days until Naftali could return, so he solved the problem the direct way, by killing Esav. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 12:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Toby Katz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> In a message dated 11/25/2015 3:29:21 P.M. EST, saulguberman at gmail.com writes: > From: Toby Katz at >> There is a way to decide between these alternatives. Look for earlier >> sources or commentators -- earlier than the 21st century. We moderns can >> speculate but can't really make up our own meforshim based on nothing but >> our own intuition. You need sources, precedents. > I guess you don't read much of Rav Yoel Bin Nun & Rav Elchanan Samet. > Where does chidush come into play? Is that not one of the main goals of > learning, that separate the talmud chacham from the rest? You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some kind of a source. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:35:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> Message-ID: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:41pm EST, Rn Toby Katz wrote: : You can only base chiddushim on /something/ not on /nothing./ If you want : to make Chushim into a bad guy instead of a good guy, you have to have some : kind of a source. I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, but continues it further. I do not know what this means where mesorah is silent. The more one knows of mesorah, and the more one is immersed in its culture, the less often one would think it actualy is entirely silent. WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story. So here, I would end up agreeing with RnTK -- since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:51:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151125235142.GD21507@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:25:26PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov) : Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's : strength : : convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try : and make a deal under normal circumstances ... Avraham, the baal rachamim, was forced to deal with the Aqeidah. He was challenged with knowing the proper balance between rachamim and obedience. Similarly, I understood Yaaqov's life story as his repeatedly being challenge WRT the very middah that was his strength. This is particularly going to happen when developing Emes... Emes and Shalom have naturally been in conflict since creation. Which is why we had to invent the concept of tact, and the gemara has sugyos like "keitzad meraqdim". Emes and Shalom disagreed with the idea of creating humanity. Emes was thrown to the ground, "emes mei'eretz tatzmiach" through the course of history. But because of that, shalom's problem too was addressed, and HQBH didn't have to deal with it separately. IOW, Yaaqov was forced into a corner BECAUSE, not despite, his being an ish emes. The world isn't ready for unadulterated emes; the balance between emes and shalom have to be worked out. OHMYG-D! I just realized that this dovetails SO well with what I posted earlier today about Yitzchaq thinking that history was nearing its end and Edom and Yisrael would start the messianic confederation for avodas Hashem... After all, that is the era of shalom / sheleimus, and because it hadn't come yet, emes's limits had to be tested... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 15:52:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Nov 25, 2015 6:35 PM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > I would borrow RYBS's chiluq between shinui and chidush WRT halakhah: > Shinui runs counter to mesorah, chidush flows in the same direction, > but continues it further. I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought and ideology). Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:01:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought : and ideology). Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. I think this is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, not inertia, how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. >From : ... So while the classical academic tried to find the original intent of the text, the postmodern found this impossible and therefore doesn't try. Instead, he looks to see what social constructs the text implies for the primary purpose of questioning it. ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being with a current that runs through history from creation to redemption. FWIW, I also relate this to the Qetzos identifying Torah's Eitz Chaim with the "emes mei'aretz tatzmiach" that I mentioned recently on another thread. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 16:29:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 7:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:52:32PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: > : I agree, and would add that the rishonim likewise guide us in the general > : direction of understanding Chazal (and pesukim and general Jewish thought > : and ideology). > > Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore > both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. This is not an exception, because we were speaking in the context of what you called ''shinui'' vs. ''chiddush," and I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > I think this > is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. Not sure what you mean by that. > > As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, > not inertia, These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to our subject. (Don't ask me to explain what they mean in physics, either...) > how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. Deciphering original intent is the initial objective. The assumption is that ''what R' Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be'' is an accurate analysis of what Rav Yochonon's historical intent was. What to do with the results arrived at when allegedly accurate new and contradicing information appears is another story. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zvi Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used the wording ''general direction,'' in accord as well with RET's wording of ''making a bad guy into a good guy.'' > Make ''RET's" RbTK's. > Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 18:37:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 07:29:35PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: :> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore :> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. : This is not an exception... Nor is it a pasuq. :> I think this :> is less and less true the further one gets from pure TSBP. : Not sure what you mean by that. I mean that a number of the rishonim who give pesat in Tanakh are perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than the gemara did. The notion of chiddush vs shinui appears to be a TSBP thing. When dealing with peshat, it doesn't necessarily apply. Which to my mind makes sense. TSBP is be'al peh in order to be a process; the rules of the process are specifically for TSBP. For TSBP, like any other exploration of fact, you try your best to find truth, and are not bound by rules of process. :> As for the rishonim's guidance... I spoke in the metaphor of momentum, :> not inertia, : These are physics terms, and I don't understand how they apply to : our subject... Momentum is like your invoking direction, except that momentum also includes speed and mass. I meant the mashel that in cases where there is some tolerance in direction, how much leeway you take depends on how weighty the matter is. And, the bigger the chiddush, the slower you ought to take things. : either...) :> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot. : Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa is ever debated? And what about cases where the intent isn't speicifc enough to cover one understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. Rather, it's how those details got filled in during the centuries since. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 17:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a recent tradition article article there is an example how > a chumrah especially made as a reaction leads to a kulah > > In the prohibition R Louis Ginzberg issued a psak that one could > use grape juice for kiddush. In reaction to this Conservative > psak some O rabbi attacked R Ginzburg and paskened that grape > juice was no different than orange juice and certainly not to be > used for kiddush. As a result O Jews used wine for kiddush > during the prohibition but drank grape juice without any hechsher. > > Today (beginning with R Pesach Tzvi Frank) most poskim say that > one can use grape juice for kiddush (some even say its preferable). > Most important they all hold that grape juice is wine for the > prohibition of stam yeinam > > Hence, the attempt to attack R Ginzburg and be machmir led many > Jews for over 30 years to transgress the issur of stam yeinam. Alternatively, one could say that the attempt to equate wine and juice led many Jews in recent years to transgress the issur of a bracha l'vatala at Kiddush. I am NOT taking sides or paskening on this issue. (Nor have I read the article he referred to.) I am merely using it to illustrate how (in my experience) when one finds a "chumrah leading to a kulah", it can also be viewed as a "kulah leading to chumrah". These things are reversible, and oftentimes the right and left are determined only by one's starting point. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 01:27:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:27:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: << Lisa Liel wrote: Hashem sent nevi'im to anoint kings who weren't from Yehudah. Shaul, Yeravam, Yehu... I have to figure that if He did that, it's okay. In any case, the Ralbag and Radaq say she wasn't Jewish. >> Note also that Athaliah is the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel (according to most commentaries). Athaliah was married to Jehoram of Judah to seal a treaty between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and to secure his position. In any case we have many cases in Tanach where Jews married nonJews (and at least the Bible doesnt mention any conversion). As we have discussed the most famous case is Ruth where her conversion seems to occur after the death of Machon and Kilyon. Others cases involve marriages of kings for political purposes including David and Shlomo. Note that Rechavam's mother Naama was an ammonite. In addition we have the famous story of Shimshom. Of course before Sinai we have Moshe Rabbenu. Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism Eli > > > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 20:13:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what > he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah > either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense? Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. Perhaps R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another (which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant). And perhaps R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't > have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Nov 25 22:04:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> Message-ID: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,... > Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have > to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ... The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did, but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his interpretation of that person's actions or other statement. On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote: RMB: >>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore >>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well. ZL: >> This is not an exception... RMB: > Nor is it a pasuq. Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea already existed. To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim. But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on Aggadita. And you explained, > I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are > perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than > the gemara did. So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself, or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us in how to understand Chazal. RMB: >>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot ZL: >> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective... RMB: > So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about > what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't > Torah either, no eilu va'eilu, No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective, and what I went on to say after that. RMB: > ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense? Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the darkei pesak conclude. The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same case match Hashem's original intent in that case. RMB: > Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa > is ever debated? Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point. RMB: > And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one > understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or > gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on > a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:17:48 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring Message-ID: >From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert; b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching majority. These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a minor convert. -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 06:19:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R'Zev Sero wrote: > Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her > new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her > old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of > mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda > zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she > could be executed, but either she intended to break > her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she > originally intended to abandon her gods but later > backslid. My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance" valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice, and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance. Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to abandon her gods but later backslid." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:21:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying > nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 07:51:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question Message-ID: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:30:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are > a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in > establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a > family to convert; > b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who > converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism > upon reaching majority. Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? Who holds such a thing? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:55:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? : Who holds such a thing? For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a io So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is : >thus considered an independent convert... The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:49:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey Message-ID: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered a religious or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the history of the Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the kashrus of birds in general and turkey specifically. There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. As mentioned above, one should not have a party. Attending a Thanksgiving Parade The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving is a non- Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist on going to the parade do not have to refuse. Kashrus of Turkey As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue. See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:07:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > : Who holds such a thing? > For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is > qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather than al daas his father. > So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether > you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am: > : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is > : >thus considered an independent convert... > > The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether > the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such a child is able to object. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:23:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> <20151126195552.GA1603@aishdas.org> <5657667A.3060001@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether >> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. > I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question. > See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6. > Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such > a child is able to object. There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted with a parent can never object. Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a foetus always converts with his mother). Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually driving), is the child objecting? -- Yours sincerely, Mit freundlichen Gren, Arie Folger blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] conversion monitoring In-Reply-To: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> References: <56575DCD.9020000@sero.name> Message-ID: <56577208.1030007@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: >> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is >> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are >> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in >> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a >> family to convert; >> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who >> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism >> upon reaching majority. > > Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion? > Who holds such a thing? Everyone, as far as I'm aware. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:56:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Yes. On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:05:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. see also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism and Saul Guberman asked: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra. It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and "woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ / common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 14:16:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:16:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <565784BD.5060805@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel > wrote: > > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana > Ezra or before? > > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal > descent. Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at > some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish > spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one > might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not > the mother. The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish before Sinai. It wasn't a think. Everyone had to choose it themselves. As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4. "And do not marry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says "*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God. Meaning that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish. And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:44:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 12:55:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:55:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah > > wrote: > > > Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of > marrying nonJewish women. > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism > > Eli > > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. Ever since Sinai. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 13:09:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah < >> avodah at lists.aishdas.org > wrote: >> >> >> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of >> marrying nonJewish women. >> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism >> >> Eli >> >> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >> >> >> > Why do you think it was a switch? It was always matrilineal descent. > Ever since Sinai. > > Lisa > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing mentions the mother. Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some point. Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse. He does not mention anything about the children. So one might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 16:47:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Gid_Hanasheh_Incongruity_=AB_Insights?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_into_Halacha_=AB_Ohr_Somayach?= Message-ID: _Click here: The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966) I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 21:45:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <565771B3.3070907@starways.net> Message-ID: <5657EDE4.7090409@zahav.net.il> The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father. Nothing > mentions the mother. T From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:20:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <56581249.8020800@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: >> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: >>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? >>There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > Please site a source. Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a. The pasuk warns that if your children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your grandchildren to avoda zara. But it says nothing about what your goyishe daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you, so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them. > All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe > married non jews. All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews. There weren't any Jews for them to marry. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 00:57:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:57:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> Message-ID: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass > without sinning (in the objective sense)? > KT > Joel Rich ------------------------------- From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] Yes. ======================================= For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? KT Joel RIch THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 01:23:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. ___________________________________ I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created by Am Yisrael's actual practice. Ben PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition involved here. That question is above my pay grade. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 03:31:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:31:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >> KT >> Joel Rich > ------------------------------- > From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] > > Yes. > ======================================= > For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 06:36:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy : ... : Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of : Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is : entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and : innovation... When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case. Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why haven't they cured cancer yet? The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that change is possible by pointing to another one. And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel. In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day. Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things that sound unacceptable to the native speaker. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 08:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> Message-ID: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> >> Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass >>> without sinning (in the objective sense)? >>> KT >>> Joel Rich >> ------------------------------- >> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:lisa at starways.net] >> >> Yes. >> ======================================= >> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? > No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. > > Lisa > ---------------- Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. Who draws the line and where was the question that I was trying to get at (other than hkbh in the ultimate sense) Kol tuv Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:12:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151127171228.GA4449@aishdas.org> I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah. If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for the sake of a higher value is not a sin. If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the damage caused by the sin. On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah says something of use along the way. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 09:30:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >: >http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy >: >... >: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of >: Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is >: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and >: innovation... I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are ohers. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 14:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 00:49:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Simple Yes or No Question In-Reply-To: <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> References: <24a1434184ee484cba08d23eb5b3db37@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <565771E5.4080406@starways.net> <59f2d3640cce4084b818c9ced36691a4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <56583F15.3090905@starways.net> <4C5E32EB-B7D7-41CA-89DC-00CE5709B516@sibson.com> Message-ID: <565A2F6D.4040807@starways.net> On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: >>> ======================================= >>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses? >> No, and no. In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put to their head is *obligated* to do so. One who has Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness. >> >> Lisa >> > Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions. I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly. I make my own choices, as do they. I realize that there are people who abuse language in this way, but I think the reality is clear. *Only* if a person is literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered entirely involuntary. People often say "I had no choice". But a bad choice is still a choice. If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*. Even though the alternative is certain death, it's still my choice. > Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and other forms of mental illness, homosexuals etc. are all oness to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies. In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their actions. While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally *cannot* function sexually with a woman. In such a case, I'd say that oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a heter for anything else. That said, oness isn't the only mechanism involved here. Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 13:07:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: From: Ben Waxman via Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no problem marrying non-family. Ben >>>> Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"? Bilhah and Zilpah were family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah. Yes their mother[s] were pilagshim but very likely also family. Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it -- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his aunt. However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it was given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At that point, every single Hebrew converted! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Nov 27 12:41:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <20151127143608.GA10927@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5658BFF2.8090206@sero.name> On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long > enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining. > Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era. What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul? AFAIK there was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos. Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic? AFAIK the phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages. On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are > ohers. Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey. Also some female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in their usual diet as adults. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Nov 26 11:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56575B2E.6070102@sero.name> On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R'Zev Sero wrote: >> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her >> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her >> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of >> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda >> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she >> could be executed, but either she intended to break >> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she >> originally intended to abandon her gods but later >> backslid. > My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention > to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all. > This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I > don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count > as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is > human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some > failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance. Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong. As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we *expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to"; rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely. On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Nov 28 19:43:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:43:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151127173014.653FE182C96@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565A744E.2020205@zahav.net.il> If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't observe. Ben On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. > Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there > are ohers. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 05:58:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey Message-ID: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz. I was mistaken when I wrote that his father, Rav. P. M. Teitz, did not eat turkey. Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 12:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Rav E. M. Teitz wrote: :> My father z"l ate turkey. My maternal grandmother's family, who are :> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not. R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter the sugya. The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds. R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting? R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor, as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species. Implications about daas Torah noted. Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi. So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient? The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 07:01:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 10:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption Message-ID: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 146 - 148 in Rav Schwab on Chumash. In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish People. Their laws are the antithesis of Torah, yet these officials shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state, the name "Israel," appropriating the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself "Yisrael,", the sacrilege still persists today; the use of holy names to disguise profane entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker." This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is reproduced in the book Selected Writings. I have put the entire essay at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today. YL In part it says A secular Jewish State, its remarkable accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions of sworn enemies. No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls, missionaries, to name but a few. The horizons of mankind are covered with black darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint glimmer of dawn. As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier missiles. On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised redemption we yearn and pray for. It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and Eretz Yisroel. It means the complete abolishment of all traces of G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land. It means the pacification of mankind and the end of the reign of violence and terror. It means the unification of all men in justice and righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the Supreme Ruler of all human affairs. In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all the Earth." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Nov 30 07:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> References: <20151129135927.BDF11182E2E@nexus.stevens.edu> <20151129203209.GA27998@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151130151748.GA9929@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote: : Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid : requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require : mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to. RAZZ corrected me off-list. The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2, citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds). He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known not to be a doreis. To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein leshanos. But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more simanim that make it gooselike. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Nov 29 08:49:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:49:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim Message-ID: We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what happened I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of Yaakov Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov I have seen 3 approaches to this story 1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed 2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem 3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 00:30:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:30:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not Jewish > > and hence certainly not fit to be kings Nevertheless Tanach indicates > they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda. Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah zarah, her giyur remained valid. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 01:00:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and underwent a more kosher giyur herself. Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a different wife. - Ilana ilanasober at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:39:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. Ben On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote: > Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To > monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to > Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given. At > that point, every single Hebrew converted! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 10:34:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:34:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] A Parable on Redemption In-Reply-To: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151129150200.D9A7117FCF2@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <565DE825.9040407@zahav.net.il> What is this based on? The Rambam lists as one of the characteristics of a possible Moshiach is that he fights God's wars. His model of a possible Moshiach was Bar Kochba so the Rambam meant that literally. OTOH in his list of what a true geulah looks like, the rav left out "Jews return to Israel", one the Rambam's primary requirements. Ben On 11/29/2015 5:01 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would > initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of > bloodshed. I From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 09:21:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html#comment-form is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that [even if this premise is true ] to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel --- since amongst the groups that do NOT are Satmar , and they are considered O . nominally other nebulous groups in the general rubric of O mostly HAVE submitted to someone. eg Chabad submitted to their Rebbes while they had them . MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ----- but in both cases , one can claim they essentially need submit to no one , since there is no universally recognized Leader of either stream, even though SOME of those latter groups DO submit to someone [ eg RHS in some of MO , and certain crown hts rabbis in the case of chabad]. the controversy is whether OO , which recognizes NO authority over them , are in violation of the proposed tenet or not . so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 12:57:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:21:58AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. That's a far cry from expanding da'as Torah to consluting on questions where the unknowns are in the metzi'us. E.g. Which job is better involves knowing the industry; even to know which job would make it easier to grow in qedushah. And a far cry from thinking that since da'as Torah is a special mode of reaching an answer, all TRUE gedolim would reach the same answer. But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:34:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:34:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: RBW: Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply patriarchal descent. The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, and Moshe a Midianite. The problem with marrying Canaanites was not necessarily that they weren't Jewish (whatever "Jewish" meant at that stage - Abrahamic monotheists). There are various other problems. The curse. The fact that this would have muddled the promise of the land to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov and their descendants davka as part of the brit - rather than their having some claim on the land as the result of marrying into Canaanite families. The presence of a large local Canaanite clan of ovdei avodah zarah in-laws and the risk of being assimilated into such a clan or being unduly influenced by their values and culture. (Yaakov had such a problem with Lavan, but he was able to physically pick up and leave and establish a border between them. This would have been much more challenging had Lavan lived in Eretz Canaan.) By the generation of Yaakov's sons the small family had become a somewhat more extended clan, so this may have been less of a problem by that stage. - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 13:06:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <565E0BBF.1050307@sero.name> On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and > Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, and neither did Yosef or Moshe. But this had nothing to do with halacha. Halachically they were all Bnei Noach. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 16:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> References: <565DE95A.8020401@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20151202003748.GC25413@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq : and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out... Because of the middos ra'os of Kenaan, not because of Jewishness. See Rashi on Bereishis 26:35. Esav's marrying two Chiti women caused moras ruach for his parents because "all their actions were to anger and sadden" others, and (in a second comment, quoting BR) "that they worshipped AZ". Nothing about his marrying out of the faith. And this was before Yitzchaq got Avraham's berakhah; had Esav inherited "Jewishness", he hadn't lost it yet. And as I said earlier in this thread... I understand that one of the reasons why someone who eats gid hanasheh fried in cheilev is chayav twice is because ein issur chal al issur doesn't apply to an issur hakolel. The gid hanasheh is a broader issur because it once included non-Jews. We also learn the ritual steps of geirus from preparing for maamad Har Sinai because that is when our ancestors became "Jewish". The gemara actually holds lehalakhah that the avos weren't Jewish. And what do we mean by "Jewish" anyway? Obviously we do not mean the etymologically correct translation -- members of the community of believers of the religion of the descendents of Malkhus Yehudah. No Malkhus Yehudah yet. Similarly we aren't using it to refer to members of the berisim of Sinai or Arvos Moav. And as I just mentioned, Beris Avos was handed to someone, not inherited. I don't see any possible referant. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 15:00:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: <565E269C.50400@schnurassociates.com> You can add Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam to the list of Gedolim who didn't eat turkey. I know this from my sister, his youngest daughter-in-law. She also added that instructed his children that they did not have to copy his avoidance, though they all do. As for my nieces and nephews-his grandchildren-none of them have ever invited thier Uncle Joel over for Thanksgiving Dinner but then they live in Lakewood where American holidays aren't celebrated. :) ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 14:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic Message-ID: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 1 23:04:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 07:04:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> References: <20151201205750.GA25413@aishdas.org> Message-ID: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well. Even if you're one of the great posqim and can only consult rabbeim-chaveirim, because there is no one else to find. You have to be able to accept someone with more skill and/or more objectivity WRT this particular question may have the better answer, even if in ways that elude you. ==================================== This may be how we act, but I think if you look at the mfarshim on the 2 times aseih lcha rav appears in avot you might conclude that the "requirement" (eitzah tova maybe) is to have someone else, even not greater than you, to speak to, in particular when you have some doubt about your conclusion. Interesting to me is how do you define doubt. When looks at halacha, one is almost always "in doubt" at some level since even halacha that we accept usually has some minority opinion we ignore, often without a clear algorithm of how we got there. Recently I was discussing a particular application in an uncommon situation of hilchot shabbat in an area where I am pretty familiar with the basic concepts. I said that it seemed fine but to consult a poseik because you never know if you'll be told something like "yes, it seems fine, but in this area we are choshesh for the opinion of X even though by the standard halachic algorithms we wouldn't be. We seem to view a poseik as someone who can lift that doubt from our shoulders and put it on his, assumedly through his shimush or whatever makes him a "poseik" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:23:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:23:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, ever meant someone so prominent. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204294 The video there is pretty cheesy. You can hear in the production quality it's a missionary group's presentation. But I guess it's all A7 found in English. In Hebrew, there is https://youtu.be/1jkD1k3viBA . Lechizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 17:40:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 20:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his > seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh > is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian > deities including pharoahs. The archaeologist gives an answer in an article in TOI. http://www.timesofisrael.com/seal-bearing-name-of-judean-king-found-in-jerusalem "The Egyptian motifs were spread over the second millennium BCE all over the region" and no longer bore their original significance, Mazar explained. Ancient Judeans employed the sun disk to denote the Almighty, and its bowed wings may connote Hezekiah's expression that "my power is thanks to God's protection," she said. "It was nothing like what it meant to the Egyptians," she said. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 20:57:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <565FCBA9.2040600@sero.name> On 12/02/2015 08:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It seems that among the trash found around the Ir David dig, they > found an actual seal of Chizqiyahu haMeleh. Something actually touched > by someone named in Tanakh is an amazing concept, Several seals of people named in Tanach have already been found, including that of Baruch ben Neriyah. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:08:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero > wrote: > On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before? > > There was no switch. It's de'oraisa. > > Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. I?m somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was a switch. It?s a position I normally associate with people who do not believe in Torah min hashamayim. It seems self-evident that the criteria for Jewishness must be d?oraisa. (And what conclusions to draw from things that happened pre-SInai are not obvious.) However, in a recent conversation with a non-religious co-worker about the nature of change in halacha (he was making an argument of the ?many things have changed, why not this? variety), I found myself thinking about this very halacha. The proof found in the Gemara in Kiddushin relies on a non-obvious reading of the verse; in fact, the simplest p?shat would, IMHO, lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that decent is patrilineal. It would be in keeping with my understanding of how halacha worked in the time of the Sanhedrin to suggest that originally the law was patrilineal, based on the same verse, and that a later Sanhedrin overruled this based on an different drash. Now this would solve certain problems in Nach, but would raise many others. But is there any reason that positing such a scenario would place someone outside of ?Orthodoxy?? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 2 23:18:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 00:18:24 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > http://attemptsatjewishthought.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy > > But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher. > > Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of Orthodox Jews eat turkey. How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to resolve the two. > > The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA controversy over Mesorah. Not because they offer one-sided support for ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos. I?ve seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This makes all the difference. Arguably, the resistance itself is a vital part of the long-term process. But, at the very least, slow organic change is very different from advancing an agenda. And the possibility that the former may occur does not validate the latter. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:00:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> Message-ID: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:08:16AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : On Nov 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: :> Please site a source. All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the :> mitzvos) plus Moshe married non jews. : I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone on this list assuming there was : a switch. It's a position I normally associate with people who do not : believe in Torah min hashamayim. I think RSG is suggesting a different kind of change. Although I do agree that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a non-heretical possibility. I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age of the pasuq. But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period before Matan Torah than after. So that even if they kept all the mitzvos, intermarriage wouldn't have been an applicable issur. Kind of like the question of why Avraham didn't do a beris milah before being commanded if we take their keeping kol haTorah kulah literally. (Which I do on the mythical level, and have my doubts on the historical one. Meaning, the aggadita has to be understood in a way that works logistically if you are going to learn what it is supposed to be teaching, but if I had a time machine, I bet I would find things weren't actually done that way...) So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris bein habesrim. Similarly but even more blatantly: Until there is a beris Sinai, one cannot really discuss how it was inherited or whether it was inherited at all. Never mind a prohibition against marrying outside of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566067CE.4010108@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:00 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > So, one of the answers is that a foreskin wasn't orlah until the beris > bein habesrim. I don't think you meant to write bris bein habesarim, since it's not relevant to milah. If it were relevant, then one would have to ask why he waited another 29 years. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:02:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:02:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <> what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:34:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:24AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the critical : difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, the switch to nusach : Sephard, or even how Judaism survived without the korbanos, all arose and : entered the mainstream ... but it is clear in : all these cases that the source was not a group of activists promoting : a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside value system. This : makes all the difference. My own problems are specifically with (1) the technical issue of changing whose halachic decision-making is considered "pesaq", and, more relevant to RDMI's point: (2) changing the feel of the synagogue, (3) the implication that synagogue is more important to Judaism than it really is, (4) the attempt to erase differences (egalitarianism) rather than create comparable room for opportunity, and (5) the seeming willingness implied by 1-3 to accept and adapt halakhah to externally derived values rather than spend time assessing whether the West is just pointing out values we should already have gotten from the Torah. The Sho'el uMeishiv also accepted an outside value once, and at the time that I first encountered it in a lunch-and-learn (Jun 2001) I applauded it. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it > is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership > of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal > (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights > are lehalachah also eternal. > Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for > that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a > halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos > of copyright. > I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns > moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. But there was a procedual step here -- comparing the outside value and finding them consistent with the Torah's, but a new expression of ideas already found in Torah. I think that if (5) weren't true, I would be comfortable saying eilu va'eilu about 2-4. But I think I've gone further discussing one man's opinion, and one man's self-examination about its roots, than anyone would bothering reading. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:08:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566068EA.9070308@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 11:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob Since when? -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:11:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: "saul newman asked: : is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must : submit to some defined human authority? ... And RMB answered: "In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav." I never thought of asei lecha rav as a tenet or Orthodoxy, just as I don't think of the other part of that phrase - kenei lecha chaver - as a tenet of Orthodoxy. Certainly wise things to do. But tenets? I don't think so. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 08:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 11:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9f625d66a3dcdeb0e23a891d3d0158b8@aishdas.org> A story with more background, more science, and a suggested answer to your question: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm [1] > Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian deities including pharoahs Links: ------ [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202132519.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 07:59:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:59:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Turkey Message-ID: <> The question is whether it was a personal chumra or they felt it was really prohibited. I have heard that R H Schacter also does not eat turkey nevertheless the OU gives a hechsher to turkey. Nevertheless it is clear that turkey today is considered a kosher bird. There are some rabbis that are machmir on almost anything, Doesnt have any implications for the rest of us. Rumor has it that both CI and the Brisker Rav would not do melacha on "yom tov sheni" because of the Rambam that says that Yom Tov Sheni holds for any location where the messengers didnt reach. We dont pasken this way and in fact these gedolim did not publicize their views so that others would not follow their personal psak -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:20:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: <52b63.5c749881.4391e1ed@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O one must submit to some defined human authority? clearly, we must deny the preposition that to be O one must submit to either the entity called 'moetzets gedolei hatorah' of the USA or Israel.... so, is there a tenet of O that submission to a defined panel of leadership is mandatory? >>>> Aseh lecha rav. You cannot be Orthodox if you refuse to submit to /any/ rabbinical authority and if you insist on setting yourself up as your own authority in all matters great and small. Even someone who genuinely is a great Torah scholar must consult with colleagues and not be arrogant. If there are any midos that define OO, they are self-importance and arrogance. This is also true of the "Orthodox" feminist movement, and all movements and individuals who reject the very idea of rabbinical authority. BTW we must NOT "deny the preposition" because we cannot make ourselves understood without prepositions. When I was in the 8th grade I had to memorize this list: in, of, to, for, by, on, into, over, under, with, above, below, at, from, across, beside, between, without. Without the preposition, all attempts at communication would be like the Tower of Babel. Of course, even /with/ the preposition, a lot of what goes on here is just like that -- misunderstandings, talking at cross-purposes, and throwing bricks at one another. So, not to forget the main point -- aseh lecha rav. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 10:30:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> From: Zev Sero via Avodah On 12/01/2015 01:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what? To >> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe I see no reason to suppose there was any sort of "conversion" involved, since among Bnei Noach yichus goes after the father. Membership of the tribe would be automatic with marriage. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name >>>> Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. He actually wrote something similar to what you are claiming here -- that they did /not/ convert their wives, and that there was only patrilineal descent back then, and it made no difference who the wives were. The reason I wrote that there had to be some kind of conversion before Yosef and Moshe et al could marry their non-family wives is that it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. The Torah makes it absolutely clear that the mother is critically important -- Avraham's heir could not be born from Hagar, he had to be from Sarah. Do you honestly believe that we are only talking about biological genetics here?! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:56:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151203195659.GA12401@aishdas.org> I think that without a rebbe, one is disconnected from the oral Torah, from the eitz chaim. There feels something basically Karaitic about it. The Rambam on Avos 1:6 appears to take "asei lekha rav" as an obligation, not as Pirqei Avos's mussar "ought"s. Perhaps mirroring my intent when I threw the phrase in there, just for sloganeering purposes. BTW, I found this, by R' Jonathan Ziring (whose shiurim on YUTorah.org were recommended here by others) : ... The Gemara rules that if one Chacham forbade something, another Chacham is not allowed to permit it. In another place, the Gemara forbids one who asked a shayla from asking another posek. While Tosafot seems to think there is only one prohibition, on the Chacham, the simple understanding of the Gemara is that these are two prohibitions. Why is it forbidden? There are three main possibilities: 1. It is a lack of respect for the first Chacham to ask a second one. The Ran suggests this, and adds that it also causes it to seem like there are two Torot. 2. It is a form of neder you accepted either his decision, or to listen to whatever he said (we will return to this). This positions seems to be taken by Raavad. 3. The Chacham creates a metaphysical status by poskaning that you are bound to. This is most clearly taken by the Ritva. There are many differences suggested between these.... And "For a full treatment, see the shiur and sources (here )." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 11:06:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> References: <53b75.325548bd.4391e461@aol.com> Message-ID: <566092BC.3030701@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 01:30 PM, via Avodah wrote: > it is critically important what the mother of your children believes and teaches your children. WHat has this to do with conversion, either before or after matan torah? There are plenty of non-Jews who believe and Jews who don't. > Ben Waxman did not write the paragraph you quoted in his name, I did. Hence the double > -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 12:21:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not descendants of Canaan (eg Tamar) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:36:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204113648.GC17702@aishdas.org> According to R' Hutner (Pachad Yitzchaq, Chanukah #5), Yishmael had to opt in, but Esav actually was born in and opted out. H/T RYGB @ https://youtu.be/rjcRNTbtCpc I argued that intermarriage was about Beris Sinai, and therefore not applicable. If you argued that it was about Beris Avos, it would seem RYH would inist that since Yaaqov's generation you can be born in, and the question is only which parent. BTW, this fits the understanding of Esav as a failed partner in the venture, the side that was supposed to provide the material resources while Yaaqov povided the spirituality. And that's why Yitzchaq, despite actually knowing that Esav was the hunter who married into the local tribe, wanted to bless him with "mital hashamayim umishmani ha'aretz". Esav opted out of all that, but it was indeed who he was supposed to be. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:42:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] octal arithmetic In-Reply-To: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> References: <565E230D.9070908@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204114246.GD17702@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:45:33PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The Ramban in his commentary on Iyov 5:19 (ed. Chavel p. 40) says : that seven is "sof hacheshbon". What does he mean? I know 10 is called "sof hacheshbon" because we do base-ten arithmetic. And this is, al pi Google, the most discussed usage. However, couldn't the Ramban simply mean that the seventh was the end of what the satan's cheshbon for what he was doing to Iyov? As in the completeness of sheva - shavua - sova (- shevua?). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:11:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: > Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq > and Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out. So my > original point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't > simply patriarchal descent. Reread what you wrote. Are you referring to Yosef and Moshe as "some of the Avot"? That's an error. Yitzhaq and Yaacov were among the Avot, but Yosef and Moshe were not. I am not harping on linguistic details, but rather focusing on a point which is essential to this discussion: The women married by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov were markedly different than the women married by others of that time period. Sarah's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rivka's father's paternal grandfather was Terach. Rachel and Leah - their paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather was Terach. Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined patrilinially. I do not pretend to know WHY this was so important. But it does seem to me that it was a critical factor for Yitzchak and Yaakov's mates. And it also seems that once the 12 shevatim were born, this ceased to be so important, and I don't pretend to understand that either. Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Maybe the importance stopped already when Yaakov married Rachel and Leah. These are just some thoughts I've had. If anyone wants to build on them, or knock them down, go right ahead. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:22:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:22:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> References: <5655F7E2.9020205@starways.net> <20151125201603.GC4564@aishdas.org> <56561B52.7080107@starways.net> <20151125204829.GF4564@aishdas.org> <56575B60.2000308@sero.name> <20151203160020.GE4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <54EE012B-F61D-427B-A1CB-F9B017F9038C@cornell.edu> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Although I do agree > that those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) should have no problem believing Ezra's BD > set up a new derashah about inheritence. Or at least accept it as a > non-heretical possibility. Except that ?moavi velo moavis? doesn?t come up that often. In any case, I see no reason to pin the hypothetical change on Ezra?s BD specifically. The question for me is: should we expect that there were major changes of this sort which happened long pre-Gemara, and which we have no record of? > I think the cries of heresy come from those who assume a different > mechanism for the change, like Document Hypothesis ideas about the age > of the pasuq. I don?t think the DH is relevant here. The pasuk is hardly a clear proof without a menorah from the Gemara. The problematic (heretical?) position seems to be that halacha didn?t really work like that back then, and the rabbis of that time changed a lot of things willy-nilly. > But in any case, I thought the topic RSG questioned was about the change > of the meaning of the colloquialism "Jewish" when speaking of the period > before Matan Torah than after. I wasn?t trying to go after RSG. But he did mention a takanna of Ezra?s BD. Obviously, the question of how ?Jewishness? and intermarriage worked pre-matan Torah is complicated, and not a proof for what followed. -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 3 20:08:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 23:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority Message-ID: R' Saul Newman asked: > is it or is it not a tenet of Orthodoxy that to be defined as O > one must submit to some defined human authority? I never heard of such a tenet. The only authority we must submit to is Hashem. > ... MO submitted to RYBS while they had him ... No, not as far as I know. On the contrary! RYBS encouraged his talmidim not only to think for themselves, but to pasken for themselves and their communities too. It is quite common to hear stories of when he declined ... no, that's not a strong enough word ... he *refused* to answer a question posed by a newly-minted rabbi, teling him the youngster that it is now *his* responsibility to analyze the question and to rule on it. > the controversy is whether OO, which recognizes NO authority over > them, are in violation of the proposed tenet or not. This is not the complaint that I've heard against OO. The alleged problem is not that they reject the authority of any specific individual or group, but that they have done things which flaunt the authority of Tradition-as-a-whole to an extent that it puts them beyond the pale. R' Micha Berger asked: > But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the Sanhedrin. End of story. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I was making. The comparison to turkey would only be appropriate if the poskim all said turkey was assur, and then a group of people came along and said, ?How can we Jews not participate in this important American holiday? Such a thing is contrary to our values! We must find a way to matir turkey." -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 03:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204115301.GA5617@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:08:28PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But back to the point... doesn't halakhah demand heteronomy? : (That's a new word for me. Had to look it up. Thanks!) Yes, definitely. But : we submit to Hashem. Only to Hashem. And He has commanded us to submit to : His representatives, but in my understanding that refers basically to the : Sanhedrin. End of story. Actually, submitting to Hashem's morality would be more specifically theonomy. Which ends up looking very different than autonomy or (other) heteronomy. Whereas my understanding is that the whole point of semichah today is to continue that "basically the Sanhedrin" even after semichah deOraisa was lost. What I am implying is that we are commanded to have an LOR and turn to him for pesaq for the same hashkafic reasons we follow wholesale pesaqim since the close of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud Bavli (what we loosely call "following the SA"). Halakhah isn't an autonomous venture. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 00:08:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel M. Israel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachos of Turkey In-Reply-To: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151126195020.6170B1831E5@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <68330054-478F-4210-9C13-36114A2C2C90@cornell.edu> >From the article RYL quoted: "However, the G'ra says that we may only imitate a practice which possibly originated in Jewish circles, and was then adopted by the non-Jews." With respect to Thanksgiving, it is my understanding that the original celebration was done, at least in part, in conscious imitation of Sukkos. The article seemed to imply that according to the Gra, Thanksgiving would be assur, but in general we are lenient like other authorities. But I wonder whether we could argue that Thanksgiving fulfills the Gra's criteria. I also note that the quotes the article brings from RMF are much less clear cut than the conclusion it attributes to him. I don't know if a fuller reading of those teshuvos would justify the article's conclusions. Also, they write: "They may eat turkey because they enjoy it, but not for the sake of thanks." This seems very strange to me; a perfect example of a technical reading of the sources leading to a obviously silly conclusion. The basic question in my mind, which I haven't seen addressed, is this: What do we say about a custom, originated by non-Jews, but intended to serve HKB"H? Is such a thing chukkas ha-goyim? -- Daniel M. Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:00:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:00:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> References: <565820FA.7080603@zahav.net.il> <2DC333A9-8731-4E20-ADA2-EA57098B4D02@cornell.edu> <20151203163408.GF4965@aishdas.org> <474744F4-083F-4866-924E-0EBE838536C0@cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20151204120048.GC5617@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:13:25AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel via Avodah wrote: : I think your reply got much more into the details then the point I : was making... As I understand it, you are distinguishing between turkey, which called for innovation because the situation is new vs ordaining women, in which claiming that today's woman poses a new situation is itself what needs proving. Which is a valid contrast. I was just saying that the whole comparison fails to begin with because you cannot handwave over the details. Halakhah was given in a legal format, details matter. Just looking at a vague concept like "see, we do innovate" is meaningless, and therefore I felt that contrasting the kinds of innovation secondary. Like detail and technology, and complaints that begin, "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we..." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:20:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Meir Brodsky via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:20:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Saturday evening begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, I write to you from Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where I am into my second year of post-doctoral research in the Department of Mathematics. Here in Israel, we began praying for rain 6 weeks ago, on the Jewish-calendar date of 7 Heshvan, according to Mishna Taanit 1:3. Thank God we've received some rain since then. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that many of you still expect my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv this motzei Shabbat (Saturday evening), December 5, 2015, corresponding to the evening of 24 Kislev, 5776. The phrase ??? ?? ???? ????? "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) In unrelated news, here is some recent work of mine in Set Theory: A seminar talk I gave at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Yerushalaim, including a video recording: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/Souslin-trees-Oct-2015-IIAS.htm Research paper recently submitted: http://www.assafrinot.com/paper/20 Older work - my PhD thesis, completed in 2014: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68124 External examiner's report on my thesis: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/BrodskyThesisReportMar2014.pdf American Mathematical Society review of my thesis work: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3274402 Possibly more understandable to many people: If you're curious about how often we read from three sifrei Torah when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat during Chanukka, as will be the case this year, then see here for this as well as other Chanukka-related calendrical facts: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/Chanukka.htm And here for how to calculate the molad, as this week we will announce the upcoming month of Tevet: http://individual.utoronto.ca/aribrodsky/MentalMoladMethod.htm Finally, I would like to apologize to many of you for not maintaining communication over the past year since I've arrived in Israel. I'm sorry I haven't always responded to your messages. It's taken me a while to get used to my new surroundings, but I hope to make more effort to keep in touch with you in the near future. Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 08:18:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> RSN: <> RMB: << In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this holds for your rav as well.>> There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:46:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah Message-ID: R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: > I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the > critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, > the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived > without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream > is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post > here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in > all these cases that the source was not a group of activists > promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside > value system. This makes all the difference. Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda? Your examples vary widely. It is hard for us to imagine the trauma suffered by the loss of korbanos, and how our leaders guided us into adapting to the new reality. Of course they were driven by an *internal* value system, wanting us to continue as Torah Jews without succumbing to the depressing loss of such a major portion of our avodah - no pun intended. But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do you suggest drove that ruling? Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* our value system. "History is written by the victors." Looking back, we can smugly rest assured about who was proven to be right, and who was proven to be wrong. But in the middle of it all, it is very very difficult. There were plenty of genuine gedolim in Korach's camp who thought that Moshe Rabenu was the one who had the agenda. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:16:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2d96f3.3622204f.4393245a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [1] what does it mean that Yosef and Moshe converted theri wives? [2] They were the only "Jews" around and certainly no bet din. [3] Yosef kept secret that he was a son of Jacob and so its clear what his wife knew. [4 ] Did his wife also keep "most of the Torah". -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] Already answered. It means "they converted their wives to monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe." [2] Correct, already noted, "not to Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given." [3] You probably meant to write "it's NOT clear what his wife knew." He did not keep his identity or his religious beliefs secret from his wife and children. That is how Menashe and Ephraim were raised "Jewish" -- putting it in quotation marks because Judaism didn't formally exist yet -- even before the 11 brothers showed up and Yosef revealed himself to them. That is how they were raised in the faith of the Avos and were tzaddikim when Yakov came to Egypt, such that he recognized them as equal to his 12 sons even though they had grown up in Egypt with an Egyptian mother. She was a "Jew" (with quotation marks for the stated reason). [4] His wife probably kept most of the Torah, yes. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 04:58:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56618DF4.6020504@sero.name> On 12/03/2015 03:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, >> and Moshe a Midianite. > Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was > wrong with that? There was nothing wrong with that. AFAIK nobody criticises him for it. But as Rashi says, if he meant it he would have divorced his bad wives. >> No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, > Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a > sister. Rashi says as the first and primary pshat that each son had a twin sister, so there were six girls for Leah's sons to marry, and the other sons could marry Leah's daughters. > Also I would assume that the were people in Caanan who were not > descendantsof Canaan (eg Tamar) Indeed there were, and the second pshat is that they married such girls. For instance, Rashi specifically says that Yehuda's first father-in-law was a trader, *not* a Kenaani. On 12/03/2015 11:11 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Anyone notice a pattern? For the avos, it wasn't enough to stay away > from Canaan, or any other tribe for that matter. They had to marry > davka within the family of Terach, and with "family" being defined > patrilinially. Except that Avraham didn't specify that Yitzchak's wife come from his family, but only from his birthplace. (The servant *told* Rivka's family that Avraham sent him to them, but there is no hint of this in Avraham's actual instructions, or in the servant's actions until then. It's clearly something he made up for their benefit. See Malbim.) > Anyone know the parentage of Bilhah and Zilpah? Rashi says they were Lavan's daughters. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 09:30:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: <2da173.5b3b3f5.439327af@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " > The specific problem was marrying Canaanites. Yosef married an Egyptian, > and Moshe a Midianite. [1] Esav seems to be crticized for marrying in the family of Ishmael. What was wrong with that? [Email #2.] > No, it was zera kodesh, not mixing with the cursed seed of Kenaan, [2] Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister. -- Eli Turkel >>>>> [1] The problem, as Rashi says, is that he only married her to blow smoke in his parents' eyes, as proven by the fact that he did not divorce the idol-worshipping wives his parents hated! He just added another one to the harem. [2] The same medrash that says the 12 shevatim were born with twin sisters says or implies that they married each other's twins. They kept /most/ of the Torah but strictly speaking were only obligated to keep Noahide law which permits brother-sister marriages, esp if they are from different mothers. A simple reading of the text OTOH would imply that they married local women, Canaanite women. Some probably married relatives from Aram or local relatives. Undoubtedly there were many cousins, esp if girls from the Yishmael and Esav lines are allowed, and why wouldn't they be? Once there was a "three-fold cord" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, the dangers of the subsequent generations marrying Canaanite women and being influenced by them were not as great. The survival of the clan as a separate, G-d-fearing clan was now assured. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 05:10:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:10:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System Message-ID: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal system must work? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:16:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:16:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System In-Reply-To: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <29fcac5956e4482eac486a083cf63c66@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151204181634.GB543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate original : truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in Jewish history) : or one focused on a chronologically monotonic historical process (i.e. do : we care what the Rambam originally thought or only how the baalei mesorah : understood him through time)? If the latter, is this because this is : what HKB"H commanded or because the rabbis determined this to be how an : effective legal system must work? We have discussed this topic repeatedly. Eg http://google.com/search?q=constitutive+accumulative+avodah+site:aishdas.org That search is based on buzzwords from R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's paradigm, which I summarize at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i and in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/halakhah-truth-law I comment how the Rambam's unique approach to the goals of Judaism (that its goal is to lead us to metaphysical / theological truth; Moreh 3:54) that leads to his unique support of an accumulative model. But in general, RMH says that 1- The ge'onim typically believed that machloqes is an attempt to remember what was lost. 2- The Rambam says that new halakhah was built from what was given. So machloqesin over new laws could be two valid conclusions built from the process. But, machloqesin over interpretation of existing law are attempts to remember what was forgotten. 3- Most rishonim say that correct halakhah is defined by what the poseiq concludes, that this is an authority humans were given. So, the Rambam would tell you to care what he originally thought, but according to the majority view, the history of insterpretation of what he thought is more significant halachically. And in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah I described that process as: The old way of doing things, from the Enlightenment until the middle of the 20th century, was to encounter texts by trying to determine the authors original intent.... ... One popular Postmodern school is Deconstructionism. Rather than looking look for the meaning the text had to the author, but the meaning the text has to the reader. A hyper-correction to the opposite extreme. ... ... Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than what R Yochanans original intent is what R Ashi thought that intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R Ashis meaning to be, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas Aryeh and R Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of Torah, of Rav Yoachanans statement. Definitionally, talmud Torah is entering the stream. Not seeing a statement as a point to isolate in time and space, but as a being within current that runs through history from creation to redemption. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:33:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday end up being kulos about Bein : Hashmashos on Friday. Chumros about Bein Hashmashos on Friday end up being : kulos about Bein Hashmashos on Saturday. And so on. Why? Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of. I agree with your point, just that in this case, nothing compells consistency. Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). A chumerah in one din only causes a kulah in another (or a kulah in one din only opens an opportunity to be machmir in another) when it's a single decision about a single act in one event. Not when deciding general rules -- there would be no problem with playing safe both ways. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:38:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] submission to an authority In-Reply-To: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> References: <5661BCE4.4090307@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151204183823.GD543@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 11:18:44AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> In the realm of halakhah, I think so -- asei lekha rav. And this :> holds for your rav as well. : : There's a difference between deference and submission. One has to : consider carefully before disagreeing with one's rebbe, but there's : no prohibition. Witness the many cases in Hazal and rishonim where : it happens, e.g., H. Shehita 11:10. I would accept that correction. But it would still require having a rebbe to defer to. See also what I recently posted about mesorah as a dialog down the generations. Withut a rebbe, you're not sitting in on the conversation. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 11:12:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:46:56AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. : Is it *really* so clear that these changes were not sourced by an outside : agenda? Please let me split the question... 1- Were these changes actually sourced by an outside agenda? 2- Is it within the process to make changes source by an outide agenda? 3- Does emunas chakhamim allow us to believe that yes, they were changed because of an outside aganda? E.g. I could be obligated to believe that she'eris Yisrael lo yaasu avla, change because of an outside agenda would be an avla, and therefore believe that these changes were entirely internally cused. But not be able to prove the point from historical evidence and analysis. In which case, it would not be so clear from objective evidence, but clear to me anyway "that these changes were not sourced by an outside agenda. Moving from the question to my own first thoughts about answering it: I guess that if there were two equally viable derakhim one could take, why couldn't decisions between them depend on which fits other criteria. The question is how much does prcedent itself make that derekh the more viable of the two. Would my "I guess" only apply to entirely new situations, or ones with a diversity of precedents to work with? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:55:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> On 12/3/2015 11:00 AM, via Avodah wrote: > those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by > Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new derashah, and that this is the reason Ploni Almoni's was wrong to fear that a later Sanhedrin would overturn the rule. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:48:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah In-Reply-To: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> References: <20151204183357.GC543@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5661DFE9.9080402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 01:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Just as someone could be machmir both ways about grape juice: Someone > could refuse to use grape juice for qiddush or 4 kosos and also refuse > to drink stam mitz gafnum (or whatever you'd call it). There is no opinion that grape juice does not become stam yeinam. The discussion over whether pasteurised juice can be used for kiddush was an entirely unrelated question. *If there were* people who thought it was not stam yeinam it was out of pure amhoratzus. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 4 10:30:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5661DBB6.8060402@sero.name> On 12/04/2015 07:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But turkey is a whole 'nother story. What internal value system do > you suggest drove that ruling? Lehoros bein hatamei uvein hatahor. On both sides it was a pure question of halacha. Nobody had a personal or ideological stake in the matter. > Let's take another example: Torah education for girls. Only a century > or two ago, it was very clear to *some* that the Beis Yaakov > activists were the ones who were driven by an agenda from *outside* > our value system. No it wasn't. Whether one opposed or supported it, nobody accused or suspected its proponents of having an agenda. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 5 08:20:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:20:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> References: <20151204191205.GA31478@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56630EC8.1050400@zahav.net.il> The switch to Nusach Sefard was part of a movement that was put in cherem. The assumptions made about that movement were a lot worse than those made about the Judeo Feminists. It took decades before that split was healed and it still isn't completely healed. Similarly, Rav Kook was kulo internal sources/internal agenda. That didn't stop people from putting him in cherem. To this day there are plenty of folks who consider him and everything he said to be treif. Ben : R' Daniel M. Israel wrote: :> I've seen arguments like this one before, and they miss the :> critical difference. How rulings such as permitting turkey, :> the switch to nusach Sephard, or even how Judaism survived :> without the korbanos, all arose and entered the mainstream :> is a very interesting topic and beyond the scope of a post :> here (or my abilities to do justice to), but it is clear in :> all these cases that the source was not a group of activists :> promoting a agenda which was primarily driven by some outside :> value system. This makes all the difference. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:19:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:19:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry a sister." Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according to this medrash. Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 04:53:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OTOH Rashi on the recent parsha with "kol benotav" gives 2 options. Either each son had a twin daughter and so the sons of Leah married dauighters of the other 3 wives (the twin of Binyamin being much younger) and similarly for the other 6 sons or else that they married Caananite women. So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying canaanite women Eli On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Eli Turkel asked: > "Who did the sons of Yaakov marry? Even if he had daughters one cant marry > a sister." > > Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk in Vayigash vShaul ben > Hacnananis, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise > to marry her. So at least one of the shevatim married his sister according > to this medrash. > > Regarding Geirus, the Gemara in Sotah (10a) states that Tamar told Yehuda > that she was a giyores and therefore permitted to him. We see that not only > was there an institution of geirus but that the din that a ger k'katan > shenolad dami applied even before matan torah. > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:43:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> Message-ID: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY : a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to : Duchen.... I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That the point of MSbF is that it shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that "in your face" even when in public. : The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal : Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. ... But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF? Why would he feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, or make implications about their yichus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:55:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:36:53PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : The teshuva which we've been referring to is Igros Moshe, O"C 2:24. I'd : like to focus on the second paragraph, beginning on line 6. Rav Moshe : writes: : : "You can't consider it to be a Change Of Minhag, that which you have : started to daven Nusach Ashkenaz, even though your father - and another two : or three generations - started to daven in the new nusach. Rather, on the : contrary! THEY changed the minhag of their fathers, and our rabbis, the : Adirei Olam, the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz." "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. So I disagree with this conclusion: : But I have to admit that Rav Moshe also accused 3 or 4 generations of doing : something wrong, and it is difficult to imagine that he'd think it's okay : for yet another generation to continue on that same path. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:22:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What do we believe about the Kesuvim? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151206202244.GC25559@aishdas.org> I feel that this conversation strikes me very like a group of blind people arguing about the difference between red and maroon. Quite literally: 1- We are trying to contrast first-hand experiences that any of us who are neither nevi'im nor even privy to ruach haqodesh have ever experienced. For that matter, even nevi'im (other than MRAH) have a hard time processing their own experience of nevu'ah; we are told that's why they wrap the message up in familiar physical imagery. 2- It could well be a non-boolean distinction. Trying to find the line between nevu'ah and ryach haqodesh may be as fuzzy as trying to find where red stops and maroon begins. I am therefore resolved to say that those who have "seen maroon" know the difference, but I do not expect to know what it might be. Because how can we distinguish by effects between 1- Nisnabei velo yada mah nisnabei, such as when Avraham says before the aqeida "venishtachaveh venashuvah aleikhem", that more than one of them will return, and 2- The author of Esther knowing what Haman was thinking in 6:6, R' Eliezer's proof that the book was written beruach haqodesh? An indictation that they may all be points on the same spectrum is Sanhedrin 11a saying that ruach haqodesh left BY with the passing of Chagai, Zekhariah and Malakhi. I would have thought they marked the end of nevu'ah. Seems to me that nevu'ah is being called RhQ, and the RhQ we were left with after them is being deprecated as nothing in coparison. (The same way "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" didn't obviate the need to continue giving a heter hora'ah. It seems to be rabbinic idiom.) Similarly, between the ruach haqodesh of kesuvim vs that of chazal or whomever would just be more points of gradation about a kind of experience we are totally clueless about, and should simply take the statements as is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:36:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maaseh avot siman lebanim In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206203649.GD25559@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot. : The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what : happened Meaning, we are supposed to learn how to act from how the avos are portrayed, which is all we really know about how they act. This "problem" is true all over halakhah; why should this be any more immune to machloqes? We do what we always do: find which of the paths up the Har Hashem is going to be ours, and follow it. In terms of the lessons drawn, eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal : understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that : attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated : by halachic mesorah... Making that comparison, yes. Not quite saying it's an example. ... :> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are :> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than :> the gemara did. : : So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are : "more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are] : therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"? : Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal : say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal : say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of : Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?) I tried to explain why. Peshat in the pasuq is less TSBP and more TSBK. The notion of a chain of oral tradition is a less relevant concept. Second, disagreeing with peshat is an argument about what words or phrasing mean. A basically theoretical debate, with no nafqa mina lemaaseh. Medrashim are there to teach mussar and hashkafah, which hopefully do impact behavior. If all a rishon did was argue about the story in a medrash, and the story had no nimshal that had behavioral implications, it would be more comparable. But that's not what medrash is. Similarly, if a rishon who presents a unique peshat were to draw a lesson from the difference that is also at odds with chazal's, then we would have a real issue. But as long as the difference is only in theory, or understanding it to be maqor to an idea Chazal derive from elsewhere, mah bekakh? It is one thing to propose a new theory about what the pasuq means, quite another to propose a conflicting lesson about values. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 13:43:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 16:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:04:38AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : >And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one : >understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or : >gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on : >a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. : No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim : are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? : Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's : discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be : learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest : ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been introduce to the possibility. There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to decide new ones. To illustrate: If the amora said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. A tanna who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to permissability. Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 11:58:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:58:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] changing nusach hatefile In-Reply-To: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> References: <20151206195508.GB25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56649356.3010104@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > "They" meaning the first generation, the ones who actually "hischilu > lehispalel benusach hachadash", the two or three generations before the > sho'el's father. There is no value judgment stated about their children > or grandchildren (the generations in between them and the sho'el), nor > the sho'el himself staying with Sfard after the switch. There is also explicitly no value judgment about the first generation either. He doesn't understand what heter they had, but assumes they must have had one. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 10:59:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664859D.7070306@sero.name> On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying > canaanite women Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not as an actual Canaanite. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 12:55:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:55:29 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening In-Reply-To: <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> References: <32AA4C72-782B-427F-A317-9F5252328C20@balb.in> <20151206194358.GA25559@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: >: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY >: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to >: Duchen.... > I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense > needed to qualify someone as a MSbF. That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming into Shule > That the point of MSbF is that it > shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But > with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially > acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that > "in your face" even when in public. Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable as a general klal >: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal >: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker. > ... > But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF > wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them. These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna was pogum and would accept an Aliya! > Why would he > feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason, > or make implications about their yichus? I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father ??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his chance to show thanks. He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos week in week out even at the age of 85+ Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I don't see anyone driving From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 6 14:36:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 14:36:12 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] ikveta demeshicha Message-ID: gemara sota. is the general understanding that all these events described need occur simultaneously; or some have occured somewhere prior? eg massive chutzpa , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of torah learning are all described. while one can easily argue that the first two conditions currently exist, the massive number of torah learners is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene [absent nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel , r''l]. also , hyperinflation has existed,even in the Holy Land, but not currently .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 01:25:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: "Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as extreme as every shitah I've heard of." That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 09:51:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kidneys Message-ID: <20151207175107.GA18556@aishdas.org> RSN asked on areivim: : does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the : kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal organs. However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah 11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels after doing soemthing wrong. Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin. Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos, shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer. More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:07:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Siyata diShmaya and the SA Message-ID: <20151208000714.GB4554@aishdas.org> And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what is written in the BY. But he says: Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis, the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah, even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10, se'if 3 ayin sham.] AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says, because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably meant, given the BY. (71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental images, nor stop themselves from going there.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 16:32:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:32:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ahab In-Reply-To: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> References: <5661E1B9.3060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151208003229.GA16311@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote: : >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by : >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam) : The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1) assumes : Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new : derashah... Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever, R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa. Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. (When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So it's nt a data point.) In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until centuries after Matan Torah. (I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 7 18:17:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deriving halachah for new situations In-Reply-To: <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> References: <1bd3a4.4a10d8c5.43877717@aol.com> <20151125233528.GC21507@aishdas.org> <20151126000154.GF21507@aishdas.org> <5656526F.8060508@gmail.com> <20151126023705.GA1358@aishdas.org> <565686E1.1040000@sero.name> <5656A0F6.1060900@gmail.com> <20151206214323.GA22431@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56663DD2.9030801@gmail.com> On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > R. Micha Berger: >:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one >:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or >:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on >:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant. > Zvi Lampel: >: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim >: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation? >: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's >: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be >: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest >: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous? > Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that > doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it > in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been > introduce to the possibility. It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals. The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This is what makes TSBP a mesorah. > There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to > decide new ones. > To illustrate: > If the amora [Tanna?--ZL] > said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that > there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply. If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too, it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa. Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > A tanna [An Amora?--ZL] > who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a > different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter, > one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to > permissability. But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it. But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have said the halacha is. > Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two > that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case > arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the > same statement and extend it to the new situation differently. Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held was that of the predecessors. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 8 01:10:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] torah and mada Message-ID: for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of chazal in science and the various shitot see http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&id=363 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:59:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? Message-ID: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" . In it she points to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate , and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history of choclate. My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there: I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes to open the cacao bean, etc Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]? (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50 for a bag of ten chocolate coins...) Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our community of this kind of issue? In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the following: ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change. But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able to influence to force humane treatment of other humans? And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for Mevaqshei Tov veYosher? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 10:16:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151209181649.GA19043@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? : Individually? Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H' Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to ourselves defeats the original point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah leading to a kulah Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > ... You cannot be mekabel shabbos before plag hamincha and many > of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who hold like R' Tam say that > plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they are assuming > that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according to > these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset > it is too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula. I want to underscore what he wrote, and I'd like to rephrase it for emphasis: Today (Dec 9) in New York City, sunrise was at 7:07 AM, and sunset at 4:29 PM, and so Plag Hamincha - according to the Gra's calculation - was at 3:30 PM. But suppose one were to be machmir like Rabenu Tam, and suppose he chose (among the many varied understandings of R' Tam) to calculate Plag Hamincha based on the day beginning 72 minutes before sunrise, and ending 72 minutes after sunset. He would find that his Plag Hamincha is at 4:27 -- only 2 minutes before sunset! Such a person would be in a very uncomfortable on Erev Shabbos: If he lights candles before 4:27, will the bracha be l'vatala? And if he lights after 4:29, will it already be Shabbos? He has a window of less than two minutes, and that presumes his clock and calculations to be accurate! I believe that this is an example of what RMBluke meant: One's attempt to be machmir like Rabenu Tam ends up being a kula for the Gra. But one should not think that this problem is a rare one, confined to specific dates or locations, or to specific ways of calculating Rabenu Tam. For example, the example above used 72 fixed minutes; the problem is even worse for those who would use 90 fixed minutes. The "degrees below horizon" camp has this problem too. I've seen many calendars use a relatively shallow 8.5 degrees below the horizon for calculating Motzaei Shabbos. Today in NYC, the sun reached that point at 6:23 AM and 5:13 PM, yielding a MA Plag at 4:05 PM. That gives us about 6 minutes until the published Candle Lighting Time of 4:11, but areas further north aren't so lucky. In Paris (48.85 degrees north) the MA Plag is only ten minutes before sunset (read: 8 minutes after Candle Lighting). Even further north? In Gateshead, if you use "72 equal minutes", then the MA Plag is 11 minutes AFTER sunset. And even the "8.5 degrees" puts it six minutes after. Think it is better in the south? Consider this: Sunset in Yerushalayim today was at 4:35 PM. If you calculate MA Plag using 72 equal minutes, it will be at 4:29, which one might think is difficult but possible. Using 8.5 degrees, it will be at 4:03, which one might think is even more possible, But then one remembers that the minhag in Yerushalayim is to light 40 minutes before sunset -- at 3:55 PM, and then he realizes how impossible it is to really do ALL the chumros! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 9 19:13:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 22:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? Message-ID: R' Alexander Seinfeld asked: : Is there a l'chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In : unison? Individually? and R' Micha Berger answered: > Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was > the custom in some medinos. Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* medinos? I've seen a recurring thought in Avodah over the years, that if the Gemara prescribes a particular procedure, that must be the best way. If we were to apply that principle here, wouldn't it be teaching us that both ways are equally good? Going back to the original question, it seems to me that I've often read about Hallel being sung, especially in the context of the Korban Pesach. Putting it to a tune seems important, but maybe that's *only* for Erev Pesach? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 03:18:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:18:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tochacha - is it a Mitzvah to change the world or .... Message-ID: Reb Micha asked: > Is it Assur to buy [or maybe even eat] chocolate if we may thereby > be able to improve the treatment of other humans? Are we prohibited > from buying a product made by child slavery and torture to help change > industry practices? > Or is it only like hunting for sport, an activity that is Muttar but > something Jews should not want to be involved in [eg Nodah biYhudah YD > 2:10]? AKL=Ad Kan LeShono But perhaps it is not even to be discouraged, because only about a Yid do we say that they may/should not engage in such crude activities but is there any duty or any value to prevent Gyim killing one another? Even giving Tzedaka to Gyim is not encouraged but for its reflection and well-being upon Yidden. As is Chillul Shabbos to save the life of Gyim, ONLY when non involvement threatens Yidden. The Mitzvah is that of Tochacha but there is no Mitzva to be Mochiach Gyim - so if it is a Yiddishe business, are we commanded to Mochiach, is there anything wrong being done? [other than a possible reference to the NBiYehudah, but there is a significant Chiluk between making Parnassa and fishing for pleasure/sport] Besides the Mitzvah of Tochacha, must be continued until they are almost beaten up by those they are trying to influence. But AFAIK there is no duty to take any action to further the Tochacha. Not only is it probably Assur to ACT against them due to Lo Sikom, it would be Assur as Lo Sikom to even desist doing them a favour, i.e. we must not desist from eating their chocolate. But if it is a non-J business is there an Issur altogether?? The reason we may not return lost items to Gyim is that by doing so we are suggesting we know better than HKBH how to implement His Mitzvos [Rashi Sanhedrin]. By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 01:04:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:04:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and Mitzvos. This however would only be true where pretty much the entire town are ShShabbos. Where a significant proportion are not ShShabbos, it cannot be characterised as being rebellious. Eating Maccas is not an act of rebellion, walking into the packed Shule with a Maccas pack is an act of rebellion. These days most non Frum Yidden do not see driving during Shabbos or eating Maccas as an act of rebellion - they look at the Frummies waking to Shule in the rain and the heat the way others look at the Chassidim wearing their extravagant dress code - it is quaint but actually has little to do with being loyal to HKBH Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 07:30:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:30:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > Shabbos, although it may well be the smaller part of his motivation. > Whereas the guy who walks down the street on Shabbos, smoking a cigar, > is not just satisfying an urge, or even rebelling between himself and > HKBH, he is wanting to publicly display his disdain for Torah and > Mitzvos. You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 10:42:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:42:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Avodah] Mention of rain in Shavuos piyyut Message-ID: <21352091.23956.1449772938878.JavaMail.root@vznit170126.mailsrvcs.net> One of the piyyutim on Shavuos, intended to be recited in birchas gevuros in chazaras ha-Sha"tz (it's in the machzor), mentions rain -- either geshem or mattar. I I thought that I saw the issue raised in by Rav Sternbuch in Mo'adim U-Zmanim but I have searched unsuccessfully there even for the question, let alone an answer. If anyone has a source that discusses this issue, I'd be grateful for the information. Noach Witty From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 10 12:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> RJR: <> RZL: <> I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under many halachic rubrics. For example, Hazal say that each judge in a court judging a capital crime must cite a different source for his opinion. Conversely (and I think I've mentioned this problem here before) just because a preponderance of rabbis have ruled a particular example mutar or assur doesn't imply that they all used the same rubric. The SA, as a synthetic book, often faces this problem, but one can find examples of it even among tannaim (b'X savar Rebbi k'A, ub'Y savar k'B when X and Y argue based on one rubric implies that Rebbi used two distinct rubrics). David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 02:32:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566AA63E.5080309@zahav.net.il> http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/522.html See page 5. Rav Meir Cohen attacks musical Hallel (and much of singing in shul), calling it a complete distortion of what the Levi'im did (the rav calls the Levis' song Avodah, not a method to raise spirits), a poor substitute for true spirituality which only makes things worse. http://www.flipsnack.com/79987ECF8D6/523.html See page 5. A response written by Rav Harel in which he defends the musical Hallels and singing in general, bringing several sources to show that this type of prayer is exactly what Chazal wanted. Articles are in Hebrew. Ben On 12/9/2015 6:31 PM, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: > Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison? Individually? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 11 06:54:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal In-Reply-To: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <20151203012342.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151211145423.GB16344@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:23:42PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote: : LeChizqiyahu [ben] Achaz Melekh Yehudah (spelled Yhdh, no vav). : Now to figure out why someone known for stamping out AZ had on his : seal a two-winged sun with by ankh symbols on each side. The ankh : is a life symbol, but it is also found in pictures of Egyptian : deities including pharoahs. In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal Snippets: The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. Less clear is what it precisely symbolizes. Is the sun here a representation of Hashem, as per Ps. 84:12? Or,perhaps, the might of Hezekiah himself? Who offers protection, symbolized by the wings again, God, or his servant the king? Perhaps the symbol conflates king and God. It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the symbol in no way suggests that Hezekiah worshipped an Egyptian deity. Were that case, the very name on the seal would read "Hezek-Amun", or "Hezek-Re". "Hizki-yahu" leaves no doubts as to this monarch's loyalties. ... I raise this discussion not with the intent of surveying the full history of halachic interpretation to this verse, and certainly not with the aim of offering halachic guidance on the question today. Rather, I raise it with an eye toward how this verse may have been understood by a pious Judean king in the 8th century BCE. The simple meaning of Ex. 20:20 would seem not to limit such a king from employing these images. While the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 3:9) adopts the gemaras conclusion forbidding a graven image of the sun such as that found on Hezekiah's seal, the debate in the gemara may reflect a longstanding difference of opinion on the understanding of this verse. ... Josh Berman Dec 10, 15 at 4:43 pm In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal - [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:00:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:00:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:13:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:13:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: An additional question *Question:* When did the Chashmonaim win the war--on the 24th or the 25th of Kislev--if on the 25th--should not we begin to light on the 26th? *Answer: *There is a major dispute on this point. The Meiri (Shabbos 21B) writes that the victory occurred on the 24th, and the Neiros were lit on the 25th. The Pri Chadash brings that it is the opinion of the Rambam that the victory occurred on the 25th, and that we begin lighting on the night of the 25th (rather than on the night of the 26th after the victory) because Chazal established the night of the 25th for future generations to specifically remember the miracle of the victory in war which had occurred on that day. The Har Tzvi (by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Zt?l) has a fuller discussion of this disagreement in his Sefer on Chanukah, Chapter 2. The Har Tzvi actually brings one authority who used a new Menorah on the second night so that he could make a *Shehechiyanu* on the second night, as well--making a Shehechiyanu on the first night (the 25th) for the miracle of the war, and the Shehechiyanu on the new Menorah on the second night (the 26th)--to also include the miracle of the oil on that night. >> Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 19:07:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:07:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World Message-ID: 2 very different (as I understand them) audio takes on Judaism's Ecounter With the Outside World from RIETS Roshei Yeshiva. https://www.hightail.com/download/e?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZxeFhqY3E1eDJCellRT1JCek9yZWt5UmdteDRsUjJuWENHRzVZbz0 Rabbi -Aaron Kahn-drosho Sichas Mussar Chanukah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/846555/rabbi-michael-rosensweig/?????-???-????-???-the-perennial-challenge-of-cultural-interaction-and-halakhic-integrity--lizecher-nishmas-imi-morasi/ Rabbi Michael Rosensweig-????? ??? ???? ???: The Perennial Challenge of Cultural Interaction and Halakhic Integrity - LiZecher Nishmas Imi Morasi I?d be interested in reactions. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 09:34:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Selecting dayanim Message-ID: <566C5AB6.6060809@zahav.net.il> In Choshen Mishpat 25 (page 180 in the Machon Yerushalyim edition), the Beit Yosef quotes the Mordechai as saying: "B'tzman hatzeh sh'machrichim et hadayanim lisheiv b'din al pi cherem haqehilot . . . " "In our day we force dayanim to judge in court using community cherems . . . " What does that mean??? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Dec 12 21:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] p'nei hakelev Message-ID: In thread "ikveta demeshicha", RSN mentioned "failing leadership [pnai hakelev]". Just wondering if there could be any connection between the "*p'nei hador kip'nei hakelev*" description and the Midrashic description of Yishmael (our last major adversary before *y'mei Mashiach*) as a *kelev* (based on "*v'yad kol bo*").... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 13:19:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> On 12/12/2015 7:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history > > 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of > Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan > *Answer:*The Sefer /Shalal Rav/ (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes > Rishonim on this very point. > > Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus > describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. > In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. It is not > clear who Yochanan is but in any case lived before the story of > Chanukah. Some claim that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and > became a sadducee which would make the story even more amazing, In > fact it is not clear that the Maccabees came from the "right" branch > of priests to be kohen gadol Chazal didn't have any problem condemning him for taking both the kehuna and the melucha. I doubt they would have been silent had they not come from the right branch of priests to be kohen gadol. > > 2) From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the > question of the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra > conquered (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion > of Jordan was conquered by Ezra, > > However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer > anyone. They had enough trouble with their immediate neighbors and > succeeded only because of Nechemia's connection to the Persian kings. > Persia would obviously not allow the Jews to conquer a far away land. > It is fairly clear that at the time of Ezra/Nechemia the Jews lived in > the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of the Persian emperor would suffice. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:26:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chizkiyahu's Seal Message-ID: <50b0f6.241e4cf.439f9f01@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ....In case someone missed it, discussed on Torah Musings http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/hezekiahs-seal The image of the winged sun is clear in Hezekiah's seal. .... ....In going through the above mentioned thread, I saw a reference to an absolutely fascinating source. It is in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:4. There, R. Abun presents a list of celestial entities that have wings, with prooftexts. The relevant section reads, We have heard that the sun has wings,as it says (Mal. 3:20): But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings. Even the verse from Malachi is remarkable in and of itself, within the context of the seal [--Josh Berman] [Look up the pasuq at , I can't cut-n-paste the Hebrew. -micha] Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>> For one sense -- perhaps THE sense -- in which the sun has "wings," see these amazing NASA photographs of the sun's corona during an eclipse: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2008/images/gal_001.jpg http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/corona_vangorp_big.jpg --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 20:34:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 23:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah I saw several things over shabbat that seem to go against known history 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes Rishonim on this very point. Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc. In fact Mattisyahu lived in Modiin and not in Jerusalem. Eli Turkel >>>>> 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:44:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:44:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: >> From the daf yomi at the beginning of Gittin there arises the question of >> the boundaries of Israel. Tahbetz (3:4) claims that Ezra conquered >> (nichbash) the Golan while it is not clear if the portion of Jordan was >> conquered by Ezra, >> However it is clear that Ezra (or Nechemia) had no army to conquer anyone. ... > Nichbash needn't mean conquered militarily. Taken over with permission of > the Persian emperor would suffice. Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over the Golan many days travel away. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 22:51:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:51:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as to not serve in the Bet haMikdash -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:49:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:49:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: <566DE0FC.5050202@starways.net> Message-ID: <566E9EA9.2070301@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:44 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Given all the enemies that Ezra and Nechemia had as described in > Tanach it would seem odd that king would give permission to take over > the Golan many days travel away. Well, if it seems odd... Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Dec 13 23:09:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya Message-ID: Lisa is of course quite right, A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, but not of Hashem's judgement, while a guy who walks down the street on Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. So here we have the convergence of our relationship with HKBH and our relationship with the Kehilla It is reasonable to consider that wanting to comply and even feeling coerced to comply with Kehilla standards is acceptance of Ol Malchus Shamayim whilst the guy who does not care is clearly rebelling - which implies he recognises HKBH and is defiant, or could not care because he really does not believe either way that would be a MShB but our co-relgionists who pledge loyalty of sorts - do not fit into either of these categories - so I think we can say they are not to be classified as Halachic MShB Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 02:55:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:55:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> References: <50c1be.28f5cd73.439fa0f3@aol.com> Message-ID: <566EA032.50900@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 6:34 AM, via Avodah wrote: > 1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" > but rather "a great priest"? > 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete > and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. > 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen > Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the > BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that > he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified > the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. > Mattitiyahu didn't purify the Mikdash. He was dead before we were able to take it back. It was Yehudah who did that. Also, "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" doesn't mean "Mattitiyahu ben Yochanan, Kohen Gadol". It means "Mattitiyahu -- ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol". The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 07:21:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Here's where I am currently... : By treating Gyim as we treat Yidden we are also denying the special : relationship that HKBH has created which binds Yidden together. I was raised with too many Hirschian notions to understand the subject line. To RSRH, "Mamlekhes Kohanim" means to elevate society's moral calling; changing the world in this way is the whole point of the Jewish People. As RMR noted off-list, that doesn't make what he wrote /wrong/, it's just an observation. BUT... The Ran (AZ Rif 1a, on 6a) holds that we are required lehafrisham min ha'aveirah. The Tashbeitz (shu"t 3:133) uses the same phrasing to justify his pesaq that mikol maqom assur lesaymam -- i.e. mesayeia' is not limited to Jews. The Mordekhai holds it is mutar. The Rama (YD 151:1) discusses selling an oveid AZ something he needs for his avodah, but could buy elsewhere. He holds lehalakhah "nahagu lehaqil" like the Mordekhai (citing the Moredekha), but (citing the Ran, the Tosafos, and others, who prohibit baal nefesh yachmir al atzmo. The Pischei Teshuvah quotes Emunas Shemu'el that he doesn't find this heter clear, as the gemara's case is where he owns a usable animal already, not where is another available for purchase, and therfore wants to limit the Mordekha's heter to that one case. (I noticed that the Rama blames common practice for our holding like the Mordechai, as well as the ES's reluctance, as though neither like the sevara. But you can buy that speculation or not, the following conclusion is based on the ba'al nefesh yachmir.) It would seem therefore that hashkafically, we are supposed to be helping non-Jews avoid sinning "lehafrisham min ha'aveirah", even if this value doesn't rise to the point of turning mesayeia' into a chiyuv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 05:22:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Misunderstanding Mesorah: Turkeys and Women Rabbis Message-ID: <20151214132218.389DB182BB7@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/12/41114/ R. Dr Ari Zivotofsky What does turkey have to do with women rabbis? It is a question that would have never occurred to me until last week when my almost 20 year old, popular article about the kashrut of turkey was invoked in the name of women rabbis. I was honored to be cited, but bemused at the application. It seems that women rabbis is THE topic. Are women rabbis good for the Jews or bad? Are women rabbis a fait accompli or will their opponents yet prevail? The discussion goes round and round and is discussed in every possible context. So, come Thanksgiving, there was an article by Ben Greenfield, a rabbinic student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, attempting to connect women and turkeys. I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of ordination and do not intend to address the broader issue of women rabbis, but I do know something about bird mesorah and feel obligated to point out that what was written in this widely circulated article does not actually contribute to a better understanding of whether women should be ordained or whether turkey is kosher. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 03:53:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:53:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566EADA8.9000109@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:51 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > Mattaisyahu was from the mishmar Yehoyariv. . According to the gemara > in Taanit this mishmar did not return with Ezra and so was punished as > to not serve in the Bet haMikdash Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:30:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:00:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) *Question:* Who was the Kohen Gadol at the time of : Chanukah--Mattisyahu--or his father Yochanan : *Answer:* The Sefer *Shalal Rav* (p. 147-148) presents a Machlokes : Rishonim on this very point. : : Obviously neither were kohen gadol at the time of chanukah. Josephus : describes the various successions of the kohen gadol eg alcimus etc... There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, so Menileus (Choniov) was able to buy it out from under him. Menilaus also over-promised, and Antiochus ended up appointing Jason's brother, Lizimakeus (Jewish name unknown). Limzimakeus tried to steal the money from qodshim, but he was caught at it and killed by Y-mim. So Menilaus retained the title of high priest. Meanwhile, runmor reaches Y-m that Antiochus died in battle in Egypt. It wasn't true, but on that rumor, Jason rounded up an army to depose Menileus. Malshinim told Achashveirosh that the rumor of his death was celebrated.ASo, he attacked Y-m. The Misyavnim turned Fifth Column, and opened the gates for him. And so his suppression begins. But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the role al pi halakhah. Jason -- as his name change indicates -- was himself from among the Misyavnim. : Some claim : that he is the Yochanan who lived 80 years and became a sadducee which : would make the story even more amazing, : In fact it is not clear that the : Maccabees came from the "right" branch of priests to be kohen gadol Saying that the ban on mishmar Yehoyariv was still in force would rule out both Yochanan and Matisyahu, unless they usurped the title. The Hasmoneans did, but our mesorah is that the Maccabees merited the miraculous assistance they received. The bigger problem would be that is Taanis 27a-b means the family did not return from Bavel, how are we discussing them being in Modiin? Taanis 29a lists a number of things in common between churban bayis rishon and churban bayis sheini: it was erev 9beAv, Sunday, the year after shemitah, mishmar Yehoyariv, and the leviim were singing, standing on the duchan. Notice this implies Yehoyariv was back in EY. Eirachin 12b says that if Yehoyariv would return, they would be folded into Yedayah. Which I think would imply that Yochanan and Matisyahu were considered part of Yedayah, and only their cousins who remained in Bavel would not be pulled out of galus for the appointment. Otherwise, tzarikh iyun. But it has nothing to do with which were more plausibly KG -- the problem is equal either way. BTW, R Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) linked the machloqes about how to parse Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohein Gadol, whether it's Matisyanu ben Yochanan-Kohein-Gadol (Yochanan was the KG) or Matisyanu-ben-Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Matisyahu was the KG) to the machloqes about how eidim sign a shetar. Should it be ne'um Re'uvein ben Yisrael eid or ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yisrael Since we hold the former, we consider the "ben" to be more binding than titles. So, if the author of Al haNisim holds like we do, it's Matisyahu who is being called the KG. >From http://torahmusings.com/2006/01/yohanan-high-priest by RGS: ... There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest: 1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather. 2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim." 3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon. ... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 10:33:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:33:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> References: <20151214183016.GB8396@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <566F0B6A.7010506@starways.net> On 12/14/2015 8:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > There was no real kohein gadol. Jason (Yeishua) bought the position for 60 > kikar, with another 80 kikar in pledges. He couldn't pay up the pledges, > so Menileus (Choniov) Choniov? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 11:02:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:02:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chashmanoim Message-ID: <> I am completely confused by the first option: The two sons of Mattiyahu that became Kohen gadol were Yonatan and later Shimon - no Yochanan who died in battle For the second possibility we are left with the result that Mattityahu's father became a Sadduccee at the end of his life. There also exists a midrash that Mattiyahu's father encouraged him in the revolt against the Greeks, For the third possibility the son of Shimon (John Hyrcanus) indeed succeeded his father and was Kohen gadol (for 31 years) . Note that he spent most of his years fighting wars far from Jerusalem. One of his accomplishments was conquering Samaria and destrying the Samaritan temple. At his death his wife became secular leader while his son became Kohen Gadol. (however the son threw his mother into jail and starved her death and took over both roles) Again Mattiyahu lived in Modiin and not Jerusalem. Moddin seems to have been the home for the whole family. I agree with Micha that the "high priest" in the years before the Macabbe revolt were not legimate (some not even being priests). This would imply that there was no halachic kohen gadol for many years. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:08:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:08:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim Message-ID: As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Dec 14 12:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] al hanisim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151214205724.GB6498@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As an aside on the identity of the kohen gadol in al hanisim. From what I : have seen the first place where the words of al hanisim occur are is siddur : Rav Amram Gaon and no one knows the true origin of the prayer Yeah, but... We do know it was written at the latest by a gaon and withstood well over a millennium of "peer review" by chakhamim across the globe. Anything /that/ enshrined in the siddur has got to be reliable. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 05:01:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:01:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests Message-ID: from wikipedia The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron , the first high priest of Israel and elder brother of Moses , through Zadok , a leading priest at the time of David andSolomon . This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans .[2] The Jewish Encylopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 06:19:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:19:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> On 12/15/2015 3:01 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > from wikipedia ... > The Jewish Encylopedia > http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7689-high-priest > towards the end has a list of all the high priests. In the second > Temple era it is mainly based on Josephus. Note that the only Yochanan > in the entire list is John Hyrcanus (son of Simin Maccabbee) Like I said before, Onias = Chonyo = Choni = Yochanan = John. These are all the same name. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 07:41:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:41:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: When the gemara talks about the temple in Alexandria the priest is idetified as Chonyo. So the gemara seems to distinguish between Chonyo and Yochanan as does Josephus. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 09:20:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:20:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] high priests In-Reply-To: References: <56702178.7010806@starways.net> Message-ID: <56704BF8.3090104@starways.net> No. Sometimes the Gemara uses the name Chonyo, and sometimes Yochanan. Just like Tanach sometimes calls the second to last king of Judah Yechoniahu and sometimes Yehoyachin. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 13:59:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Aspaqlaria] Kayli Message-ID: <20151215215906.GA11881@aishdas.org> This evening's blog post. (Minus Hebrew and Aramaic.) -micha There isn't much I can say about the life of Aliza Kayla bas Mikhah Shemuel. She was born the first day chol hamo'ed Sukkos. I don't think she wanted to... Kayli spent the first days of Sukkos getting herself as far from out of there as possible, and she came into the world feet first. Eleven weeks later, a couple of days after Chanukah she left. Two thoughts though. Kayli's brief life brought people together. We moved to Passaic shortly before her birth thinking that our enlarged family would need the extra space. People invited us for Shabbasos those first weeks to make the new people feel at home in the neighborhood. Then she was born, and we relieved weeks worth of food from neighbors who took care of us while my wife recovered. We were barely done with all the leftovers from those meals when the meals started arriving during shiv'ah! More directly, one thing struck me about Kayli's life. The last time I held her, I marveled at her newly acquired talent to smile back at me when I smiled at her. Social smiling develops somewhere around 7 weeks give or take, but I was never the most observant parent. It is now 4 Teves, Kayli's 24th yahrzeit. I cannot ask people to remember her example and give tzedaqah like she did, learn like she did, be a generous friend like she was. But Kayli did teach me the preciousness of a simple smile. So please do me a favor and make someone smile today! Complement them, give an unexpected "thank you", tell a joke. Just do anything to bring people together, more happiness into the world, and a smile to someone's lips. When Rav Dimi came [to the Golan from Naharda'ah, Bavel], he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, "Master of the universe, twinkle to me with Your `Eyes', which are sweeter than wine, and show me Your `Teeth' which are sweeter than milk." [The twinkling eye and the visible teeth being a description of a heartfelt smile.] This is a proof for Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan said: Whitening a friend's teeth [in a smile] is greater than giving him milk to drink. As it says, "uleven shinayim meichalav - and teeth whitened with milk." (Bereishis 49:12) Do not read "uleven shinayim", rather "libun shinayim - the whites of teeth" ["meichalav" - more than milk]. - Qiddushin 111b And on the the verse, the Yalqut Shim'oni quotes Rabbi Yochanan as above, but he continues: This world is not like the world to come. In this world there is grief in harvesting and treading [the grain]. But in the world to come, each one goes out to the field and brings a cluster of grapes back by carriage or boat, puts it in the corner [and has enough from it like a banyan] that is large and its wood is enough to burn under the stew [pot]. "Vedam einav tishtesh chamer -- The blood of the grapes you shall drink as foaming wine" (Devarim 32:14) - you will not have any cluster of grapes that would not produce 60 garab [roughly 7 gallons] of wine, as it says "chamer -- foaming". Do not read "chamer" but "chomer -- substance." May we all great each other with a twinkle in the eye and a smile on the lips, so that we may live to see the day the worlds unite, and there is bounty without effort in this world as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 11:42:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: In Avodah V33n160, RnLL wrote: > The name Onias, by which several of the High Priests of the time were known, is the Greek transliteration of Chonyo, which is a short form of Yochanan. Like Rick and Richard. Jason, the Hellenist High Priest, was the successor to his brother Onias III, who is probably the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Mattitiyahu. < and > Mattitiyahu was the son of the Kohen Gadol. He could have been the Kohen Gadol himself. < I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 15:59:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:42:55PM -0500, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : I know this thought isn't as simple as taking "ben" literally, but couldn't : Matisyahu have been described as a "ben Yochanan" in the sense of being a : worthy successor as leader to a Yochanan Kohen Gadol (if not also a : descendant, a connotation of "ben", yet not a son)? Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself until the day of death, might not be the best complement. Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq who was the student of Antignos ish Socho. (A 2nd Tzadoq in the same conversation.) It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:12:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001247.GB17254@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Actually the war was won many years later. Furthermore it seems that they : entered Jerusalem earlier and waited until 25 Kislev to rededicate the : mikdash. The 25th was picked because thats when the Greeks entered the : Temple and also when Chaggai dedicated the second Temple. ... based on the belief that Zekhariah (contemporary to Chagai) said this was the date of the dedication of the final BHMQ. Which may explain the choice of navi for the hafatarah of Shabbos Chanukah. (See R Menchaem Liebtag's take at although I found that hunting for a thesis I was exposed to in HS. So I know it's not RML's chiddush.) Which, if qidsha leshaata qidsha le'asid lavo, is already fulfilled. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel - sung? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216001918.GC17254@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:39PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was :> the custom in some medinos. : Wouldn't that same Gemara be saying that it was *not* the custom in *other* : medinos? ... You deleted much of my proof, though. But then names amora'im who created pairs out of Hallel in order to accomodate the responsive reading -- and we today repeat those pesuqim. So yes, Pesachim says yeish veyeish, but then I attempted to prove from Mes Sukkah and Rashi which yeish we all hold like from other sources. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 16:09:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> References: <20151215235917.GC11881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5670ABAE.1050907@starways.net> On 12/16/2015 1:59 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Well, *the* YKG, who becomes the poster child for not trusting oneself > until the day of death, might not be the best complement. > Also, he became a tzeduqi before passing the baton. Which means it has > to be someone who lived during or after after the Tzadoq... > It doesn't leave us much room to place him well before Matisyahu. Due to the number of Kohanim Gedolim named Yochanan, it's possible that some YKGs weren't the same person as other YKGs. For example, we know that Yochanan Hyrcanus became a Tzeduki, and he was the grandson of Matitiyahu (and great grandson of another YKG). Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Dec 15 18:43:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > role al pi halakhah. I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:06:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:06:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216090626.GA21691@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the :> role al pi halakhah. : : I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, or : he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't deserve : the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused them to lose : the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a divorcee is no : longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). I am saykng that Josephus could likely list the high priests who served while the Miyavnim had control of the BHMQ and were using it as a temple to some G-d - Zeus amalgam deity. During that era, while people like Jason and Menileus called themselves "kohein gadol" those loyal to Torah might have appoimted someone to be our real KG even though he had no tahor BHMQ to serve in. I was suggesting that this was Matisyahu's role, amd why Al haNisim calls him KG even though he wasn't on the list of succession. But it is entirely my own guesswork, a variation of the idea that AhM means "a great kohein" rather than the title "Kohein Gadol". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:28:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:28:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history Message-ID: <<1. Could it be that Yochanan "kohen gadol" doesn't mean "High Priest" but rather "a great priest"? 2. Could it be that Josephus' list of Kohanim Gedolim is incomplete and inaccurate? Highly likely, I'd say. 3. Could it be that Matisyahu became Kohen Gadol -- or Acting Kohen Gadol -- only for a short while, just the time it took to purify the BHM'K and maybe for a short time thereafter? And if so, the fact that he formerly lived in Modi'in is irrelevant, because when he purified the BHM'K (and acted as Kohen Gadol) he was necessarily in Jerusalem. >> 1. Would indeed solve many problems if one is willing to make that translation 2. Am not sure it is highly likely but at least a reasonable possibility 3. I don't think that Mattisyahu was alive by time they conqurered Jerusalem. Even Yehuda didnt become high priest -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 01:21:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] hallel sung Message-ID: <> Obviously Rav Meir Cohen is not a hasid. I douibt if people today sing in imitation of leviim. Music has always been part of spirituality. Prophets would listen to music to reach the proper level, similarly for meditation. On a personal level I have on rare occasions davened in a shul for Yomim Noraim where they didnt sing any piyutim. I felt that my davening missed a lot, that is part of my yomim noraim experience. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 03:09:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halacha and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5671464D.7020607@starways.net> We know there had to be backup KGs from Yoma. The succession of KGs described in Ezra/Nechemia makes it pretty likely that this was often the son of the serving KG, but it didn't have to be. So you could have a KG who didn't serve. Lisa On 12/16/2015 4:43 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Micha Berger told the stories of several people who purchased the > position of Kohen Gadol, and then wrote: > > > But none of these people were kohanim gedolim, doing the > > role al pi halakhah. > > I thought that this is a binary status: either one *is* a kohen gadol, > or he *isn't*. Are you saying that they were kohen gadol but didn't > deserve the position? Or are you saying that their violations caused > them to lose the title (sort of like how a regular kohen who married a > divorcee is no longer allowed the privileges of kehuna). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 04:31:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history Message-ID: <> As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. Using Micha's reasoning and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 12:51:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:51:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Kamenetsky family is noheg not to eat turkey (Even those in Israel, which has the highest per capita consumption of turkey in the world) But I know of (at least) one member of the family who made a hatarat nedarim on this David Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:07 -0500 From: Prof. Levine I have been told about [a gadol] who did not eat turkey - Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:40:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Wolbe on Unity Message-ID: <20151216224031.GB22027@aishdas.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:44:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bais Hamussar Subject: Dvar Torah # 506 - Vayigash Bais Hamussar Al sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, he sent wagons to Cana'an to bring his father and extended family to Mitzrayim. The Torah enumerates all of Yaakov's descendants and ends with a tally of those mentioned: "All the person[s] of Yaakov's household who came to Mitzrayim numbered seventy." Rashi, citing the Medrash, comments that while the Torah only enumerates six of Eisav's descendants, the Torah refers to them in the plural: "the people of his house" because the few people of his house all served different gods. In contrast, Yaakov had seventy descendants and, nevertheless, the Torah refers to them in the singular: "All the person coming with Yaakov." Since they all served a single G-d, they are referred to in the singular. Rav Wolbe (Shiurei Chumash, Vayigash 46:26) explains that the description of Bnei Yisrael as a singular unit was not meant to imply that they all had the exact same outlook on the world. A large group of people who all profess the exact same mindset in all areas of life is sometimes found among people devoid of spirituality. Those with a connection to spirituality will develop their individual talents and intellect into a unique approach to life which will determine the way they think and respond to any given situation. Rather, Bnei Yisrael's quality of oneness was an expression of their living in harmony with one another (after making amends with Yosef). They loved each other and cared deeply about one another. Indeed, such solidarity is only possible if all those involved are serving a single G-d. When one finds a group of religious people who do not love and care about each other and are oblivious to the plight of those around them, it is a sign that they are not all serving a "single G-d." Such people must be serving the "gods" of desire, haughtiness and honor, for if they were truly serving Hashem then their service would breed love and friendship and not the opposite. What is the secret ingredient that threads its way through all those who serve Hashem and fuses them into a single unit? It is precisely their common desire to serve Hashem -- the single G-d -- which unites them. One might be a fiery Chassid and his neighbor a mussar oriented Litvak, but as long as they are focused on the same goal, then love and friendship will reign. However, when personal desires sneak into their spiritual pursuits it will automatically promote animosity since every person has their own set of desires and preferences. A difference in dress should not be the impetus for a lack of harmony. Distinctions such as wearing a velvet or knitted kippah, a white or blue shirt, a long or short jacket or a baseball cap or striemel, are not grounds for feelings of animosity. Nor should one's nusach ha'tefillah be a reason for enmity. If such differences irk a person, he must check his GPS to determine what life goal he is pursuing. For as Rav Meir Shapiro (the famed founder of Daf Yomi) put it, "Whether davening Nusach Ashkenaz, Sefard or Eidut HaMizrach, everyone joins together by Yehi chavod Hashem L'olam, because regardless of how one gets there the ultimate goal of every Jew is to bring glory to Hashem!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:45:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:31:08PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : As I previously brought down 3 possibilities are mentioned in the miforshim. : Using Micha's reasoning : and since the high priests after the time of Matisyahu are well known it : would seem the only possibility of John Hyrcanus. Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", (so to speak). Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 14:59:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) In-Reply-To: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> References: <5669DEF0.3040408@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20151216225928.GE22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : RJR: :> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate :> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in :> Jewish history) -- shitas haRambam -- :> or one focused on a chronologically monotonic :> historical process ... -- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam. :> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or :> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal :> system must work? Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a heart that has a natural moral calling. : RZL: :> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have :> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he :> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an :> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that :> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also :> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of. RDR: : I think both of these are too simplistic. One of the complications : of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under : many halachic rubrics... Or gedarim. However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice). I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary. RHS countered that one was, inherently. I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my original statement. IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder; not how to decide given multiple geddarim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:07:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> Message-ID: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for : > Shabbos... : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. : : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will say, : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay not being counted in the observant community. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 15:20:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:20:55 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya In-Reply-To: <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> References: <56699A8E.6090409@starways.net> <20151216230707.GF22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Micha, you are not correct to paraphrase my position as - the MSbF is not ashamed of his Chilul Shabbos, even though every Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment - I am saying that the Halachic definition of MChShB is deliberately rebelling in a manner that shows the community that he cares not what they think of him, Gd is not really the focus. Being Mechallel Shabbos was chosen because at that time it truly represented that frame of mind. Therefore these days people who are Mechallel Shabbos BeFarHesiya are not to be Halachically defined as such. All other considerations are peripheral and not relevant Best, Meir G. Rabi On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:30:22PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : On 12/10/2015 11:04 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > : > Is it not true that the status of a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya is not > : > so much a reflection upon the actual Aveira but upon the mindset? > : > The guy who smokes at home during Shabbos is ashamed to publicly > : > display his mutiny - at some level there is a degree of respect for > : > Shabbos... > > : You could say that, but you could also compare it to geneiva/gezeila. > : > : A guy who smokes at home during Shabbat is afraid of what people will > say, > : but not of Hashem's judgment, while a guy who walks down the street on > : Shabbat smoking a cigar just doesn't really care. > > I don't see the ddifference. Both of you are saying the MSbF is the > person who is not ashamed of his chilul Shabbos, even though every > Mechalel Shabbos is not afraid of Hashem's judgment. > > Or at least, not His Judgment about chilul Shabbos. He could believe > that all good people go to heaven, and therefore his chilul Shabbos is > just giving up on the icing on the cake, overwhelmed by the other > stuff. I think that mindset is pretty common among our contemporaries. > > But I am not surprised that if conversion requires both "ameikh ami, > veElokayikh Elokai", losing one's good standing requires not only sinning > in a way that brings into question the person's faith in Creation and/or > Matan Torah and/or TSBP but does so in a way that says they're also okay > not being counted in the observant community. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, > micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. > http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Dec 16 20:29:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:29:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha and history Message-ID: The mishna in Yoma does not call for a backup KG, but for a backup *to* the KG, ready to serve if necessary, but who did not become a KG unless actually pressed into service. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 00:09:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps > those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though > a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you > could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list just as much as > I could suggest it's Mordchai-ben-Yochanan who was the "KG in exile", > (so to speak). Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a Cohen gadol in exile. Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:19:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: : Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a : Cohen gadol in exile. Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something the Perushim would very plausibly do. : Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years... No, it wouldn't be THE Yochanan KG. He did serve. I was just saying that this KG in exile idea works for either Matisyahu or his father. And once we posit that such a kohein could exist, we could equally posit that it was yet another and unlisted Yochanan as much as we could posit that it was Matisyahu. Whomever it was would NOT be on Josephus's succession list. On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:13:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5672A6FA.6090908@starways.net> On 12/17/2015 10:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Well, if you buy into a different piece of my reasoning, that perhaps >> those loyal to HQBH had their own appointed "kohein gadol" even though >> a Misyavein held the title and served in a Zeusified temple, then you >> could say that the Yochanan KG wasn't one from the list... > Of course this is pure speculation. There is no hint the sources of a > Cohen gadol in exile. > Yochanan kohen gadol is depicted as being kohen gadol for 80 years, > issuing several takanot and becoming a Sadduccee at the end of his life. > It would seem hard to reconcile this with the father of Matisyahu and also > being an "unofficial" cohen gadol. Unless there was more than one Yochanan Kohen Gadol. [Email #2. -micha] On 12/17/2015 2:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:09:47AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote: >: Of course this is pure speculation. There is know hint the sources of a >: Cohen gadol in exile. > Agreed. Although (as I mentioned) there is something of a possible > successor when they set up a Nasi to counter the Hasmonean king. IOW, > this "we have the real KG, just as soon as he could serve" is something > the Perushim would very plausibly do. After all, we had a Nasi in exile. Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we didn't recognize him as such. We didn't even record the name(s) of any such "Nasi". When Shimon ben Shetach was in exile, he was still Nasi -- from our POV, though not from the Sadducee POV. So is it such a stretch to say that the same was true of the Kohen Gadol? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 04:40:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] halachah and history In-Reply-To: <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> References: <20151216224554.GD22027@aishdas.org> <20151217121931.GC7224@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Micha:] > On another note, I uncritically accepted the idea that Yehoyariv was > banned from getting the kehunah gedolah. Do you have a maqor? Why would > there even be such a ban, given that the honor was given to Tzadoq's > descendents. In effect 23 mishmaros were excluded, not just Yehoyariv. > The Chashmonaim would be out of the running either way. REMT pointed out to me that the Mishmeret of Yehoyariv was not banned from serving but rather they were subsumed under a different mishmar. The Yerushalmi Taanit 4:5 is critical of the mishmeret of Yehoyariv though its not clear at what point in history. similarly for R E. Hakalir. I admit that much is speculation that the mishmar of Yehoraiv was not considered one of the upper echelon and so the Kohen gadol would not have come from that mishmar. However if Micha has his speculations I am entitled to mine. Lisa mentions > Surely the head of the Sadducee Sanhedrin was called the "Nasi". But we > didn't recognize him as such. This comes back to an old historical debate. It is fairly clear that for many years the Sanhedrin was run by Sadducees. If so who are the zugot mentioned in Pirkei avot as Nasi and Av Bet din. Who established the new moon and hence the chagim during these many years? Nevertheless I have trouble accepting that there were 2 cohanim gedolim (like 2 popes or anti-popes). One of the jobs of the Cohen Gadol is to officiate at Yom Kippur. Which high priest did that? We know from the gemara that many of the high priests near the end of the second Temple were not worthy and possibly were Saduccees. Nevertheless the Pharisees did not set up their own candidate. As I understand we have not reached any consensus as to whom is Yochanan Kohen Gadol that ruled for 80 years, issued takanot and became a Saduccee at the end of his life. [Email #2. -micha] I am currently reading an article by Vered Noam on Chazal and Josephus. She points out that nowhere in Chazal is the names of the Maccabee brothers mentioned including Judah. Even in al hanissim we are told of Mattityahu and his sons. OTOH Josephus never mentions Hillel and Shamai or even R Yochanan ben Zakkai who was his contemporary. In fact the story about R Yochanan ben Zakkai telling Vespasian that he will become Emperor, Josephus attributes to himself. [Email #3. -micha] The gemara in Sotah 33a brings a story that Yochanan Kohen Gadol heard a heavenly voice that the young men who went to Antioch were victorious and Rashi comments that is refers to priests from the Chashmanoim fighting the Greeks. Thus according to Rashi Yochanan Kohen Gadol was a contemporary of the Chashmanoim. This fits Yochanan the son of Shimon since there were still battles with the Greeks in his time (in fact his independence was revoked for 3 years by the Seeucids). It Certainly would not apply to any high priest before the Macabees eg the various Chonya/Onias. See also the gemara in Rosh Hashana 18b. Abaye identifies him with Yannai while Rava states that Yannai and Yochanan are separate people. Note there is an obvious mistake in the gemara as the Macabbees never reached Antioch. The correct version should be went against Anitiochus. As an aside the Artscroll gemara at the end of Yoma I has an appendix on the Kohanim Gedolim. They mention that we know of 3 people named Yochanan (Mattiyahu's father , son and grandson). If it is Mattiyahu's father artscroll says he maybe the same person as Chonyo III (similar to what Lisa has claimed) . Another version connects him with the son of Matityahu which would disagree with Hashmanoim which claims he was killed in battle. Several traditional historians identify him as the grandson of Mattityahu . In fact Josephus relates that JOhn Hyrcanus became a Sadducee late in life. However, we have no record of any of these being high priest for 80 years. Somewhat similar to Micha Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi suggests that usually 2 high priests existed simultaeously one was in the temple and the other was a religious leader while occasionally the two offices were held by the same person (this also seems to be pure speculation - for example it is clear that the chashmanoim kings held both powers -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 14:48:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah Message-ID: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/hz7lmc4 llevine at stevens.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 13:24:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:24:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos Message-ID: is there any conflict between - according to the pain/trouble is the reward on the one hand and on the other hand Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with equal enthusiasm Sechar PeSiYos seems to be appreciated even where one takes an unnecessarily longer route or walks to a more distant Shule which seems to suggest we should not look for Halachically easier pathways Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha - that the TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets to eat what others would have disqualified Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 10:50:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:50:32 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning Message-ID: http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground setup--- woman attending daf yomi , told can't come certain days because of the viewpoint of the teacher. question ---- is either party wrong ? ie is it assur for a woman to learn gemara/dafyomi ? is it ok [ or even mandatory ] to not let her attend? and if so, is it more halachic , or more disrupting the male bonding aspects ? and allied to that , if a woman insists to say kadish out loud , is it ok for a shul to say 'undertone or out-of-here' ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 08:38:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves Message-ID: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> The upcoming Fast of Asarah BTeves is quite exceptional. Aside for the fact that the fast is really meant to incorporate three separate Fast Days, unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Yet, next Tuesday, for a fast best known for being the years shortest (for everyone in the Northern Hemisphere), all of Klal Yisrael will fast. The question is why... To find out, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:08:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:38 AM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > unique to this fast is that it is the only one that we do actually > observe as a fast on a Friday. Even Tisha BAv, which commemorates the > actual destructions of our Batei HaMikdash, gets pushed off. Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:55:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. KT Joel RIch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 18:12:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:12:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] difficult to perform Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Are there any examples of HKBH preferring we find an easier solution to > Halachic issues other than Yegia KaPecha and the MaHarSha -- that the > TChacham enjoys both worlds A] his reward for studying and B] he gets > to eat what others would have disqualified Assumedly any mitzvah that we are not required to do because of tircha, HKB"H would prefer we find some way to do in non-tircha ways (e.g 20% limit from takanat Usha,distance for getting water for hand washing,Aliya lregel...) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 17:58:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 01:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Avel Leaving His Home During Shivah In-Reply-To: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20151217224844.0FF6218062A@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <5e09ba995d854d6592f14aa093d16487@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The practice of sitting in different places has become more common in my community over time (e.g. sit at niftar's home in Boston then come back to New Jersey to sit so friends don't have to shlep) It would be an interesting study to see what amcha and Rabbis have said/done (much like the 2nd day yom tov thing) for this change to have occurred. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 20:13:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:13:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> Message-ID: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the chodesh, type situation. Ben On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for > it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Dec 17 19:59:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:59:30 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the > question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get > another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same > thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a > judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan] , but rather cultural/sectional. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 05:57:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] women's learning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/women-studying-torah-facts-ground > setup -- woman attending daf yomi, told can't come certain days because > of the viewpoint of the teacher. It sounded to me like the maggid shiur felt it was assur. To me the question was what is the shul's policy? -- if they disagree, they should get another maggid shiur. As to shul davening practices, I would say the same thing. I might not agree with certain shul practices, but if it's a judgment call (which I think this is), it is up to them. > sounds you mean it's not a befeirush halacha [either inyan], but rather > cultural/sectional. Not exactly. I think each party may believe it is a bfeirush Halacha but disagree on what the Halacha is. It is then up to the specific kahal/rav in question to make a determination (e.g. our Ashkenazi shul does't allow an eidah hamizrahi individual to use his nussach when he davens for the amud) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:09:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become available to retail consumers - etc. KT, GS, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:34:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about : whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an : indulgence, other than on rare occasions. A similar question may be : applied to certain cuts of steak - which have recently become : available to retail consumers - etc. I tend to write "mussar" the way you did -- with two "s"-es. This was just a fortuitous typo for "mutar". Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 10:40:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:40:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Wouldn't Rav Shimon Shkop (and others) argue that any oneg that is used for the sake of avodas Hashem is not a mussar issue? IOW, enjoy your chocolate until you realized you are eating chocolate for its own sake, rather than because the pick-me-up would be useful in order to face / continue facing . Want to discuss the mussar of eating white veal? :-)BBii! -Micha -- I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:17:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> <20151218183448.GA27312@aishdas.org> <67a68b7acb3f4d7894ba89cd56dbd734@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20151218191739.GA3695@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40pm GMT, Rich, R Joel wrote: : I wonder whether there is a concept that just because you can afford to : do something, and it is not specifically forbidden, it doesn't mean it is : preferred to do it? A Kosher trip I recently saw advertised "The Best, : No Matter What The Cost", should this be considered appropriate? Are you talking about the medrash on Qedoshim Tihyu "perushim tihyu" and what's likely the most famous comment by the Ramban? Available in English in a blog quote within My comment about RSS's position was based on his discussion of just that Ramban? Too much is being defined as when it becomes an end in itself, a distraction from life's real goals. In fact, RSS holds that holiness is defined by that commitment. This is ki Qadosh Ani. Hashem had not indulgences to be poreish from! He simply has One Purpose. We, in order to emulate His Qedushah need to separate from other purrposes. So, the mitzvah of becoming holy will require perishus, but holy itself isn't perishus. If was from his discussion of that that I was drawing from. See :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:10:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves In-Reply-To: <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> References: <20151217163845.9BAF6180F85@nexus.stevens.edu> <56735C88.4050207@sero.name> <56738804.1090102@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <56745A18.2090903@sero.name> On 12/17/2015 11:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/18/2015 3:08 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Not true. Tisha B'av can't be on Friday. If it were possible for >> it to fall on a Friday, there is no reason to believe we would delay it. > I think that they mean in a theoretical, eidut determining the > chodesh, type situation. Once again, AFAIK there is no reason at all to believe that if it any other fast fell on a Friday it would be delayed. The only fast that *is* delayed if it falls on a Friday is Yom Kippur, not because it's a fast (since it's delayed to Shabbos!) but because of the issur melacha. (Of course, since the Torah specifies Yom Kippur's date, the only way to delay it is to delay Rosh Hashana, so that is what we do.) There *is* an opinion that in the hypothetical case that Asara B'Tevet were to fall on Shabbos we would fast, but I believe the only reason this opinion gets the play that it does is because it's only hypothetical. If it were possible for it to actually happen we would not give this opinion any consideration, and in fact it might never have been advanced at all, since its originator would have known that we don't do that. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Dec 18 11:13:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? In-Reply-To: <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> References: <20151209165950.GB14436@aishdas.org> <20151214152113.GA1136@aishdas.org> <56744BF0.4030905@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <56745AF1.7020409@sero.name> On 12/18/2015 01:09 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > When I saw the title, I thought this conversation would be about > whether there is a heter al pi mussar to eat chocolate, which is an > indulgence, other than on rare occasions. On the contrary, chocolate is very good for you (though the sugar that it comes with is not, so if you're eating it leshem shamayim go for as high a percentage of cacao, and as low a percentage of sugar, as you can bear). -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you".